Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 10:59 AM 26/02/97 -0500, Gavin Nicol wrote: >Quite. I think we can model these objects in a number of ways >though. I would personally like to define the objects in IDL >*and* SGML... (for information on IDL etc. look at www.omg.org). Fortunately, we're not starting from scratch. We have two strawman interfaces on the table right now, NXP and Lark. Seems to me that since XML is particularly likely to be processed in the client, you could do a lot worse than a Java API - the idea of having a set of superclasses for Element, Attribute, and so on seems awfully desirable to me. [Confession - I've been too busy putting proper attribute defaulting in Lark (hard!) to even get around to looking at the NXP interface, so I have no comment as to which straw I prefer at the moment]. I would propose seriously that Java be the basis of the first cut at an API spec; it is really very pleasingly clean, and also has the virtue that ideas can be tested more or less instantly because there's running parser code to graft them onto. - Tim xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@i...)
|
