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

Re: Reusing, Refactoring, Reinventing??? (was Re: SA

• To: Ed Day <eday@o...>
• Subject: Re: Reusing, Refactoring, Reinventing??? (was Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
• From: Bob Wyman <bob@w...>
• Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:48:02 -0500
• Cc: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>, Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>, xml-dev@l...
• Reply-to: bob@w...

> 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
 

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (preserving investment) (ASN.1 and SAX)
• Next by Date: RE: SAX for Binary Encodings (preserving investment) (ASN.1 and SAX)
• Previous by thread: RE: Reusing, Refactoring, Reinventing??? (was Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
• Next by thread: Re: Docbook grief
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread