[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Why SAX needs namespace support

• From: Michael.Kay@i...
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:25:08 -0000

>  > Perhaps a setOption(option, flag) interface would be more 
> extensible.
> 
> I could live with this, but only if the options were namespace
> qualified, i.e.
> 
>   parser.setOption("http://xml.org/sax/features/validation", true);
>   parser.setOption("http://xml.org/sax/features/namespaces", false);
>   
I'm all for fully qualified names, but I don't see why we should repeat the
error of using "http://" names for things that are not accessible via the
HTTP protocol. What's wrong with
"org.xml.sax.option.validation"?

Or is this overkill anyway? Why not just say that names beginning with
"sax:" are reserved?

Mike

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why SAX needs namespace support
    • From: Tyler Baker <tyler@i...>
  • RE: Why SAX needs namespace support
    • From: "Borden, Jonathan" <jborden@m...>
  • RE: Why SAX needs namespace support
    • From: <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Next by Date: RE: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Previous by thread: Re: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Next by thread: RE: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread