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

Re: SAX LexicalHandler::comment issue

• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 13:52:03 -0700

> I didn't mean to suggest that this issue alone deserves a new version of
> SAX - I agree the benefit is too small.  Rather, when sufficient pressure
> for change occurs, this issue should be considered as part of any new
> release.

I'm not sure the cost/benefit tradeoff would change then.

What I'd hunt for is _compatible_ changes, with costs so
low that the benefits can dominate the equation.


> Comments are sometimes used to temporarily 'remove' large sections of a
> document.

Too bad <!-- ... --> doesn't nest well.  I'd prefer #if 0/#endif for
such roles.  Too bad neither Java nor XML work that way.
(Though it can be nice to hack C for a change ... :)


>      I don't think you will ever be able to discourage this sort of
> activity.  Indeed it is this sort of activity that creates potentially very
> large comments which may cause SAX processors a problem.

To the extent that it's a performance issue, another solution is
to offer a feature flag that lets apps say "don't report comments"
even if there's a lexical handler installed.  There's a precedent
for reporting PE boundaries (feature flag exists).

- Dave

• References:
  • SAX LexicalHandler::comment issue
    • From: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>
  • Re: SAX LexicalHandler::comment issue
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: SAX LexicalHandler::comment issue
    • From: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX LexicalHandler::comment issue
• Next by Date: RE: XML and unit testing
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX LexicalHandler::comment issue
• Next by thread: RE: SAX LexicalHandler::comment issue
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread