The SAX2 standard ? (was SAX2 bugs -- please file!)

[Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@ubicco.com>]

Thank you for all your answers. This issue raises me a few other questions :

1) More and more people reckon that the W3C DOM is not the ideal API for XML
document manipulation, be it for performance reasons (event-oriented API
like SAX being more efficient on large documents) or simply ease of use
(thus JDOM or the excellent dom4j). Moreover, building an arbitrary DOM (be
it using the W3C's, JDOM or dom4j) is easily done from an event stream like
the one provided by SAX, so we could say that an API like SAX is truly a
building block for XML processing. We really, really need a standard for
this part. SAX is the de-facto one for the moment.

2) Yet, DOM is an "official" spec supported by the W3C,  whereas SAX is not,
and gets to live on SourceForge. What will be the standardizing power of the
SAX community ? I mean, what guarantees that a vendor won't change the API
to suit its own need, thus breaking all possibilities of tool chaining ? If
SAX is not a standard, what are we left with ? DOM, with its inherent
weaknesses in large document manipulation ? What can we use to guarantee
library interoperability ? How can we have high-level standards such as XML
Schema, SOAP, etc. without having a standard for the very core building
block that SAX is ?

3) SourceForge is neutral, OK, but is it the purpose of the people at
SourceForge to host standards ? Can they accept the responsibility of
hosting such projects that may be central to the industry in the years to
come ?

4) Note the "official" in question 2. I'm very far from being an expert in
standardization organisms, so please pardon me if I make mistakes, but
shouldn't XML be an ISO / IEEE / other standard ? What are the historical
reasons that gave the W3C control over the XML standardization ? My concern
here is that we are envisioning the use of XML for B2B data exchange. We're
no longer in the presentation, hypertext and browsing space. We're in the
industrial space, which is way bigger. What is the position of the
"traditional" standardization organisms regarding W3C ? Does the industry
consider the W3C as being pertinent for these issues ?

5) I'm don't know much about SGML. What is the standardization level of this
technology ? Is it ISO, IEEE or something else ?

6) Maybe you'll think that I'm giving too much credit to SAX. But, again, an
event-oriented parsing API (it may be SAX or another API like in AElfred) is
a core part of the basic algeabra of XML processing, so learning that SAX is
"only" a de facto standard hosted by benevolent people is quite frightening.

7) Let me be clear about one point : I'd like to thank David Meggison, David
Brownell and all other people that contributed to the SAX project for the
work they've done. I am not criticizing their work or the fact that David
Brownell chose SourceForge (who the hell would I be to critic that anyway
?). I've understood that the SAX API was developed in a very pragmatic
spirit, because people needed it, and that benevolent people took the
responsibility of making it live and evoluate. What worries me here is the
fact that the W3C is quite silent about SAX (just make a search for SAX on
their homepage, or try a restricted Google search like "SAX
site:www.w3.org"). What does this mean ? What kind of standardization
dynamic does it expose ?

Regards,
Nicolas

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
>Envoye : mardi 31 juillet 2001 19:56
>A : Nicolas LEHUEN
>Cc : 'xml-dev@lists.xml.org'; 'sax-devel@lists.sourceforge.net';
>'sax-users@lists.sourceforge.net'
>Objet : Re: SAX2 bugs -- please file!
>
>
>Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:
>
>> The question may be completely out of scope here, and I'm 
>readying myself
>> for a flame mail flood, but how come such a standard end 
>being hosted on
>> SourceForge ?
>
>
>Because it is a neutral location.
>
>
>> What is the relationship with the version on David Meggison's site
>> (http://www.megginson.com/SAX/Java/index.html) ? 
>
>
>David is turning over SAX to the community.
>
> 
>> Maybe the root question is : why is SAX under the 
>org.xml.sax package,
>> whereas DOM is in the org.w3c.dom ? Why isn't SAX hosted on 
>the W3C site ?
>> Is there an historical / legal / other reason for this ?
>
>SAX is not a W3C product.
>
>-- 
>There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
>no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
>to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein
>