RE: [xml-dev] Re: SAX is not a read-only API (wa RE: [xml-dev] re: XML SIG 17...)

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>]

This is why I asked about an API being Open Source(tm) because the notion of freely distributable source code and interface definitions seem to be orthogonal to me. POSIX or the C++ STL do not have freely available documentation yet there are Open Source implementations of both (although I'm not sure there is a certified POSIX compliant Open Source implementation). 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Aaron Skonnard [mailto:aarons@develop.com] 
	Sent: Thu 9/12/2002 1:00 PM 
	To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: SAX is not a read-only API (wa RE: [xml-dev] re: XML SIG 17...)
	

	> This is interesting, but you still need a class that implements the
	> ContentHandler that is not part of SAX. You cannot write an XML
	> document without adding your own non-standard, XML classes.
	
	Sure, just like you need a class that implements XMLReader on the
	reading side. I think it's clear that we have different definitions for
	"API". I consider the SAX interface definitions the "API", where you
	seem to define it as the implementation (and entire packaging) of those
	interfaces.
	
	-aaron
	
	......................................................
	. Aaron Skonnard, DevelopMentor (http://skonnard.com).
	.  Essential XML Quick Reference available online!   .
	.    Download PDFs: http://www.develop.com/books     .
	......................................................
	
	
	
	
	
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
	initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
	
	The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
	
	To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
	manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>