Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

> About half of the OASIS Entity Resolution Technical Committee
> (ERTC) are active members of the W3C XML Core Working Group,
> the group with the responsibility for maintaining and 
> interpreting the XML 1.0 Recommendation as well as developing
> the Infoset spec.

That's good -- if you're keen on ensuring that your interpretation
is permissible, then you can easily update the relevant specs to
suit your requirements.  (Except SAX.)


> Whereas reasonable people may disagree on the interpretation
> of something in almost any written work, David's viewpoint 

Whereas David is "reasonable people" ... who's unreasonable?


> of what is in compliance with the XML Recommendation is not 
> shared by a fair number of the W3C XML Core Working Group 
> members.

If that's so, then I think it's time to update the spec to preclude
such interpretations.  As I've said from the start of this discussion.

That is, assuming "a fair number" is an appropriate majority, which
understands that the current spec language (and interpretations
like those I've articulated) underlies a popular XML parser API,
and changing this will entail changes to most existing XML parser
infrastructure in at least one major XML programming language.

Normally, that sort of situation is one where I'm used to seeing
spec changes be refused because of the severe tire damage.

Or when such changes are made, they must be _very_ important.
(And I can't see that minor type of catalog feature being that
important, but opinions can clearly differ.  Catalogs have worked
fine without needing that particular subfunctionality.)


>     As far as the Infoset, the XML Core WG also wrote 
> that specification (the original editor of that spec being one 
> of the key members of the OASIS Entity Resolution Technical 
> Committee), and most of us don't believe that anything therein 
> is contrary to the positions taken in the XML Catalog draft.

And have they all looked at the specific issues I've raised,
then?  Or is that just an un-examined assumption that this
team of folk can't possibly have made a mistake?  I see
no evidence anyone looked at those issues.  And I've turned
up enough problems with the XML spec, particularly its
entity handling, that I know such problems do happen.
(Heck, any spec has problems.  I just happen to know
that many of the XML spec troubles relate to entities.)

So I think it's an _extremely_ reasonable expectation that if
you choose to reject my interpretations (see the xml-dev
archives on this topic), W3C processes should update the
various specs, in the various areas I've made the effort
to identify.

It'd also be good to see concrete disproof of the points I've
raised; I don't take well to vague invocations that "a fair
number" of people disagree, particularly when I provide
specific spec references.  I have been known to handle
to-the-point responses quite nicely, however.

- Dave