• From: gtn@e... (Gavin Nicol)
• To: tbray@t...
• Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:19:35 -0500

>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.

I have another set of API's that differ somewhat from NXP and
Lark. 

While we're at it, perhaps we can define a common set of API's for
name resolution? I have a fairly clean API for that that allows
heirarchical name resolution services to be built.

>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

I vote for IDL because it's language independent.




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...)

• References:
  • XML API specification
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML API specification
• Next by Date: Re: Suggested List Protocol
• Previous by thread: Re: XML API specification
• Next by thread: Re: XML API specification
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread