Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
 David Brownell wrote: > (surely you can spell my name right, Rbo :) Sorry! > I still feel like you're ignoring my basic point: if that draft expects to interpret > those identifiers in conflict with clear language in the XML specification, the > bug is in that draft, not SAX. From false assumptions, anything can follow. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and if you think the draft spec is wrong then you should certainly raise your concerns with the OASIS Entity Resolution TC. I am taking a slightly different stance in that I think that they [the TC] should be entitled to use all the information items from the xml document they deem appropriate. Most native APIs already make this information available and nobody has complained that these other APIs are encouraging non-standard use of XML. > > James Clark pointed out [1] that the proposal (with his modifications) moves SAX > > more into line with the XML Infoset specification [2]. > > But that would apply only to UNPARSED entities (or presumably notations). > See my separate followup -- handling of entities that are PARSED by an > XML parser is subject to different treatment, even in the infoset. Perhaps you are right, the Infoset could be enhanced in this area. I think the Infoset doesn't address the issue of parsed entity information items because entity resolution is considered to be performed at the xml processor level and the Infoset deals with information items presented to levels above that. However, the fact that baseURI and system identifier are part of the infoset for unparsed entities and unexpanded entities implies that the same would hold true for parsed entities if the infoset said anything about them at all. > > I don't think it's a good thing for an XML API to address users who want > nonconformance with the XML specification. Agreed. We just disagree on the validity of what the TC want to do. > If a feature is that all-fired important, then it's worth formally revising the XML specification (and infoset). While I would have no problem with the Infoset being clarified, I don't believe it is necessary. In this case I think it is SAX that has interpreted the specification wrongly. Kind regards Rob Lugt ElCel Technology 
|
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
|
|||||||||
