• From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@i...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: 25 Mar 1999 08:37:14 +0100

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Should we perhaps make standalone a boolean instead?  It can only have
| two values anyway, and this will spare us a lot of
| standalone.equals(this or that).

* roddey@u...
| 
| I did that at first with my internal event APIs, but it didn't work
| out.  There is then no way of knowing whether the document *really*
| said yes or no, or whether it was just no there at all and the
| default was used. This prevents the recreation of the original
| document.

Given that this is supposed to be the handler for lexical information,
where this sort of thing does matter, I agree. It should be a string.
Don't know how I managed to overlook that.

--Lars M.


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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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...)

• References:
  • Re: SAX2 RFD: LexicalHandler draft v.1.1
    • From: roddey@u...

• Prev by Date: RE: Whence XQL?
• Next by Date: XML quick question
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX2 RFD: LexicalHandler draft v.1.1
• Next by thread: Re: SAX2 RFD: LexicalHandler draft v.1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread