[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Again discussion has trailed off on SAX-- we have to finish it. As near as I
can tell, it was agreed:
1) Beta status-- we can move from the release candidate phase after these
last issues are solved right?
2) XML 1.1 support: We need to change the references from "XML 1.0" to
"XML". Has anyone started this work? If so are there any snags. I think I
tried to bring up all of the issues I thought of and they were resolved. The
getXMLVersion text change had no complaints... right?
3) xmlns uris-- text on offer from Norm Walsh... seems good.
4) Adding the http://xml.org/sax/features/unicode-normalization-checking
feature. Seems this was agreed on and was okay-- in the XMLReader not the
XMLReaderFactory. Some comments were made about revising this in the future
and adding features to the factory-- but it seemed to be the consensus that
this could wait for another revision. The biggest question remains follows
the reporting of normalization failure.
Michael Glavassevich brought up several great points off list, including
this comment about the reported version:
"I imagine things aren't going to change much but I feel like Locator2
should only report the 'effective' version for the entity. This is the
same as the version for the document entity. This interface was added to
support the version and character encoding scheme properties of document
information items in the infoset. The version and encoding of other
entities are not part of the infoset." ... and ... "the XML version of the
document entity matters. This is the authorative version for the document
and every entity that it references. The version label for external
entities is in the same category of non-information items such as
attribute order, top-level whitespace and the kind of quotes used for
attribute values. At least there's some value in reporting CDATA section
boundaries and entity boundaries, but I don't see anything you can do with
the XML version from a TextDecl."
And this comment about normalization:
"As for normalization checking, just for the sake of consistency with DOM
Level 3 [2] I think the parser should report an error when it encounters
non-normalized text. This seems reasonable to me since the user of the
parser is in control of whether or not normalization checking is done and
presumably this information would be important to them. As for the
frequency of reporting these errors, order of events and line/column
numbers, these should be a degree of freedom for the parser
implementation. SAX doesn't impose constraints like these on other kinds
of errors. How is normalization checking any different?"
[2]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-DOM-Level-3-LS-20040205/load-save.html#LS-LSParser
For me this is very compelling. I think I was the only one arguing against
error() and am willing to concede with this evidence. I am hesitant without
an active implementation to decide it either way... but I don't see that
happening anytime soon (or soon enough)
So where does this leave us?
Best Regards,
Jeff Rafter
|
