Re: Reusing, Refactoring, Reinventing??? (was Re: SA
> Well, we [Objective Systems]have implemented "SAX-like" > which I guess is what you experts are now calling "SAD". > Is that good enough for "proof of concept"? This is certainly a first step on the way to providing a real SAX implementation. Let's hope that you guys take the next step and do full and correct SAX 2 (even if you feel that it is technically less efficient or less "good" in some way.). A partial implementation, or even a "SAD" interface has value on its own, however, it is of limited utility to those of use who want our binary streams to work properly and well with XML focused tools. It is possible to build a SAX interface to binary encodings in such a way that no one and no code can "smell" the difference between that implementation and one which was written to parse XML textual data. Such an "odorless" implementation is what we really need to work well in this environment. Sure, the implementation might provide additional features, etc. (i.e. SAD stuff) However, the SAX stuff should be implemented with religious attention to correctness and conformance. bob wyman
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format