Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Brownel wrote: > By the way, having skimmed the 12-June-2001 draft of that OASIS > proposal, I don't see where it said that it needs relative URIs as inputs. The [draft] specification refers to system identifiers from the xml document. SAX 2.0 is manipulating these sytem identifiers before passing them to the Entity Resolver. This is the problem. > > Let me turn it around: If the XML spec says something works a particular > way, who wins by encouraging tools to work in some non-conformant way? > Surely not the XML community. > I absolutely agree with this statement, but from where I'm standing it is the current version of SAX that is acting in a non-conformant way. James Clark pointed out [1] that the proposal (with his modifications) moves SAX more into line with the XML Infoset specification [2]. This has to be a good thing as it helps to ensure that SAX will be capabale of being used to implement the next generation of XML specifications (including entity resolution ;-). > > I've never once had a problem using the SAX EntityResolver in that role, > but then again I was working within the constraints of the XML 1.0 spec. > Well, you must have been working to a narrower set of requirements. The OASIS entity resolution TC are creating a specification that will satisfy a diverse group of users. Regards Rob Lugt ElCel Technology [1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200106/msg00349.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.entity.unparsed
|
