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

Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes

• To: xml-dev@l..., sax-devel@l...
• Subject: Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• From: Jochen Wiedmann <joe@i...>
• Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:32:17 +0100
• In-reply-to: <1078627030.23151.ezmlm@l...>
• References: <1078627030.23151.ezmlm@l...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)

> At 9:11 AM -0500 3/5/04, David Megginson wrote:
> 
> 
>> * 2004-0005: endDocument
>>
>> - note that a parser might not invoke endDocument after reporting a
>>   fatal error (this produces the fewest incompatibilities)
> 
> 
> I'm a little uncomfortable with this "fix". I think always calling 
> endDocument is the right thing to do, and it should be required in the 
> spec. I don't think this would increase incompatibility in any 
> significant way. It would simply encourage vendors of non-conformant 
> parsers to bring their parsers into compliance, thereby increasing 
> compatibility. This would allow users to depend on this behavior for the 
> first time.
> 
> I don't think a parser suddenly changing from not calling endDocument 
> to  calling endDocument is likely to cause major problems. Fixing this 
> in the direction you propose would simply bake in the existing 
> incompatibility. One way or the other, this should be nailed down. 
> Either parser all parsers should call endDocument after a 
> well-formedness error or none should. Letting it go either way is the 
> real problem.


I am sorry, but I disagree. I have a lot of code depending on the
assumption that the invocation of endDocument() indicates that no
errors have been reported.

In particular, I see no reason for forcing endDocument(). The
parser application has all information that it requires, because
the simple fact that the parser returns from XMLReader.parse()
(either via return or by throwing an exception) indicates the
same information.

I wouldn't have a problem, if SAX had always specified this, but
it didn't.


Jochen

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • RE: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
    • From: "Kirk Allen Evans" <kaevans@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: More on REST and HTTP status codes
• Next by Date: RE: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• Previous by thread: W3C suckered by Microsoft?
• Next by thread: RE: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread