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

Re: SAX and XML Version

• To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@n...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: SAX and XML Version
• From: "Jeff Rafter" <lists@j...>
• Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:14:34 -0800
• References: <87znbgt3nb.fsf@n...> <40341A54.40806@a...> <87n07elu8e.fsf@n...> <p06010203bc5acccee4c1@[192.168.254.4]> <015301c3f73b$d42065d0$6403a8c0@ARIMATHEA> <87eksp3be4.fsf@n...>

    /**
     * Returns the version of XML used for the entity.  This will
     * normally be the identifier from the current entity's
     * <em>&lt;?xml&nbsp;version='...'&nbsp;...?&gt;</em> declaration,
     * or be defaulted by the parser.
     *
     * <p>At this writing, the versions "1.0" and "1.1" are defined, but
     * other versions may appear in the future.
     *
     * @return Identifier for the XML version being used to interpret
     * the entity's text.
     */

I can accept that wording... the only possible suggestion is to replace
"parser" with "processor". Also, is it allowable for a processor to override
a vesion label? Should we clarify or is it better to leave it loose?

Cheers,
Jeff Rafter

• References:
  • JSR 206 and SAX
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
  • Re: JSR 206 and SAX
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>
  • Re: JSR 206 and SAX
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
  • Re: JSR 206 and SAX
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • SAX and XML Version (was Re: JSR 206 and SAX)
    • From: "Jeff Rafter" <lists@j...>
  • Re: SAX and XML Version
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: JSR 206 and SAX
• Next by Date: RE: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX and XML Version
• Next by thread: Re: JSR 206 and SAX
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread