Re: XInclude vs SAX vs validation

[Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>]

At 9:29 AM -0700 8/21/01, David Brownell wrote:

>It's interesting that XInclude is specified as "infoset merging", which
>is a model that's very much attuned to SAX processing.  If only it
>didn't use XPointer/XPath, thereby precluding pure stream-based
>processing models!
>

That's not been my experience. Comment nodes are much more painful to handle in SAX than DOM, and the infoset requires them so XInclude requires them. Comments inside xinclude:include elements are particularly nasty because they have to be treated differently than comments outside of such elements. However, from inside the LexicalHandler it's hard to tell whether or not you're inside an xinclude:include element.

I'm wondering if for Infoset compatibility it's time to add the comment() method to the ContentHandler class and require parsers to report comments. This could be done in a compatible fashion by subclassing ContentHandler with ContentHandler3 that adds the comment() method currently in LexicalHandler. 

Also not having the base URI of the original document available as a SAX property is annoying. Is this on the list of things to add in SAX3? 
-- 

+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ 
|          The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001)           |
|              http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/              |
|   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/   |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://www.cafeaulait.org/      | 
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/     |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+