[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>If an implementation provides a ContentHandler class that serializes XML
>1.0, would you still call it a read-only API?
I would still call *SAX* a read-only API because this class is not
part of *SAX*. Possibly the class that is *not SAX* such as MSXML4
would expose its own API which might be a read-write API. But none of
this changes what SAX is and isn't.
>It seems to me that the SAX interfaces were carefully designed to be
>symmetric for both read/write operations, which IMO actually complicates
>reading.
I'm completely disagree with that. SAX is far from symmetric. It
clearly intends that parser vendors will implement the XMLReader
interface while parser clients will implement the ContentHandler
interface. In practice, developers find ways to use both that were
probably never intended. That's part of what makes programming fun,
but it does not invalidate the clear record in the SAX documentation
and various e-mail archives that SAX was always intended for client
applications to read XML documents through a parser interface.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| XML in a Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002) |
| http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
