Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Where things stand with SAX
 Again discussion has trailed off on SAX-- we have to finish it. As near as I can tell, it was agreed: 1) Beta status-- we can move from the release candidate phase after these last issues are solved right? 2) XML 1.1 support: We need to change the references from "XML 1.0" to "XML". Has anyone started this work? If so are there any snags. I think I tried to bring up all of the issues I thought of and they were resolved. The getXMLVersion text change had no complaints... right? 3) xmlns uris-- text on offer from Norm Walsh... seems good. 4) Adding the http://xml.org/sax/features/unicode-normalization-checking feature. Seems this was agreed on and was okay-- in the XMLReader not the XMLReaderFactory. Some comments were made about revising this in the future and adding features to the factory-- but it seemed to be the consensus that this could wait for another revision. The biggest question remains follows the reporting of normalization failure. Michael Glavassevich brought up several great points off list, including this comment about the reported version: "I imagine things aren't going to change much but I feel like Locator2 should only report the 'effective' version for the entity. This is the same as the version for the document entity. This interface was added to support the version and character encoding scheme properties of document information items in the infoset. The version and encoding of other entities are not part of the infoset." ... and ... "the XML version of the document entity matters. This is the authorative version for the document and every entity that it references. The version label for external entities is in the same category of non-information items such as attribute order, top-level whitespace and the kind of quotes used for attribute values. At least there's some value in reporting CDATA section boundaries and entity boundaries, but I don't see anything you can do with the XML version from a TextDecl." And this comment about normalization: "As for normalization checking, just for the sake of consistency with DOM Level 3 [2] I think the parser should report an error when it encounters non-normalized text. This seems reasonable to me since the user of the parser is in control of whether or not normalization checking is done and presumably this information would be important to them. As for the frequency of reporting these errors, order of events and line/column numbers, these should be a degree of freedom for the parser implementation. SAX doesn't impose constraints like these on other kinds of errors. How is normalization checking any different?" [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-DOM-Level-3-LS-20040205/load-save.html#LS-LSParser For me this is very compelling. I think I was the only one arguing against error() and am willing to concede with this evidence. I am hesitant without an active implementation to decide it either way... but I don't see that happening anytime soon (or soon enough) So where does this leave us? Best Regards, Jeff Rafter 
|
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
|
|||||||||
