Lists Home |
Date Index |
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> Perhaps. The current situation is untenable though. Some hard choices
> need to be made, sooner or later. As it stands, SAX is severely
> underspecified, parsers do exhibit varying behavior, and programs are
> not interoperable between parsers (and this is hardly the only area
> where that is true). The failure to produce a test suite in conjunction
> with the specification was a major error, but one I hope to begin
> rectifying soon.
It would also be helpful if you could assemble a list of all the points
where you think that SAX is underspecified and put them in a semi-permanent
Web location. That would be helpful not only for any future SAX/Java
maintainers, but for people working on SAX-like interfaces for other
languages as well.
All the best,