[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: SAX 2.0 Enhancement proposal (2nd Ed)
Jonathan Borden wrote: > > > > > The weight of opinion then is on the side of change. The > > proposal for a new > > interface in the next version of SAX (SAX 3.0?) remains unmodified so I > > propose it goes onto the 'list of proposed enhancements' that I presume > > David Megginson has tucked away somewhere to be resurrected when SAX > > eventually goes to its new home. > > To be clear, I don't think that this feature warrants a change to the > current SAX interfaces which would result in SAX 3.0. I consider James > Clarks' suggestion a perfectly good solution to the issue using the current > SAX interfaces. I agree that the proposed enhancement to SAX 2.0 is sufficient. It is just that it is a little counter-intuitive and could be improved in some future version of SAX. However, I guess you're right that it doesn't need to be tabled - if it's still an issue in the future then it will be addressed at that time. > > > > The proposal for a bug-fix to SAX 2.0 needs modification along > > the lines of > > James Clark's suggestion. > > I would not call this a bug fix, rather a request for a new standard feature > (and property). The current interface works as documented. Yes, I did not mean to indicate otherwise. I chose that term because David Meggison indicated some time ago that we will be issuing a "bug fix" release to SAX 2.0 and I thought this could proposal be included. However, this is really an enhancement and should be seen as such. > > > > 2) In order to furnish the application with the base URI of the entity > > containing the ENTITY declaration, I would like your opinion on a choice > > between:- > > > b) A new standard property: http://xml.org/sax/properties/baseURI. This > > property will contain the baseURI as described in (a) above. > > This is actually an important property to have, and is one of the (few) > missing information items of the XML Infoset that SAX fails to provide. I > think we need _both_ but I am more interested in the base URI property than > the standard feature. Can I take that as a vote for option (b) - the creation of a new property, leaving the systemId to contain just the system identifier from the xml document? If we are going to have a property containing the baseURI, there is no need to overload the systemId parameter with it. > The value of this property will only be valid during the invocation of a > resolveEntity() call. > > This property should be valid at all times. When the base URI is > unknown/undefined the value can be null. This sounds reasonable. Many thanks for your input. Regards Rob Lugt
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC