[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Collected Works of SAX
- From: Rob Lugt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Leigh Dodds <email@example.com>, xml-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:34:59 +0100
Leigh Dodds wrote
> I've summarised the recent 'SAX, missing features?' thread
> in this weeks XML-Deviant article . Both to introduce the
> discussion to a wider audience, and hopefully provide a
> useful feature list if the suggested work goes ahead.
> Is there any interest in progressing this further? Where
> do we go from here?
I think you raise an important point, where does SAX go from here? SAX is
clearly a very important API and there is a significant amount of delivered
software using it. For this reason, any change to SAX needs to be carefully
managed, a task that David Megginson has stated he is unwilling to continue
Whilst I know of nothing urgent that needs fixing, there is growing pressure
to review and extend SAX. Standardizing the API for other language bindings
is just one example. This task needs to be undertaken in an open and
controlled way. I think it is time to hand SAX over to a working group that
has a clear set of guidelines for how it should operate.
I remember a few months ago there were discussions about SAX being taken
under the umbrella of OASIS. This sounds like an ideal solution to me,
because the OASIS process is very open yet controlled. I'm not sure what
happened to that idea, but I believe it needs to be pursued as a priority.
The SAX project created on SourceForge may be a useful area for developers
to share pieces of code, but this is not a viable alternative to having SAX
administered by a responsible (and responsive) body.