[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
> David Brownel wrote: (surely you can spell my name right, Rbo :) > > By the way, having skimmed the 12-June-2001 draft of that OASIS > > proposal, I don't see where it said that it needs relative URIs as inputs. > > The [draft] specification refers to system identifiers from the xml > document. SAX 2.0 is manipulating these sytem identifiers before passing > them to the Entity Resolver. This is the problem. 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. > > Let me turn it around: If the XML spec says something works a particular > > way, who wins by encouraging tools to work in some non-conformant way? > > Surely not the XML community. > > I absolutely agree with this statement, but from where I'm standing it is > the current version of SAX that is acting in a non-conformant way. 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. > > I've never once had a problem using the SAX EntityResolver in that role, > > but then again I was working within the constraints of the XML 1.0 spec. > > > > Well, you must have been working to a narrower set of requirements. The > OASIS entity resolution TC are creating a specification that will satisfy a > diverse group of users. I don't think it's a good thing for an XML API to address users who want nonconformance with the XML specification. That's the sort of process which undermines standards. If a feature is that all-fired important, then it's worth formally revising the XML specification (and infoset). - Dave
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC