Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Ron Bourret wrote: > I don't think the same situation applies to SAX. SAX is still fairly young and > we have a better chance to dictate/agree on required features, so we should > avoid optional features as long as possible. Within XML 1.0, there are various things that non-validating parsers are allowed to do (or not do). A way of querying any particular parser to find out whether it does those things or not would be very useful. For example, a parser is allowed to disregard attribute types and claim that all attributes are CDATA. If your application depends on getting ID and IDREF types correct, you could query a parser to see if it can do that --- and if not, tell the user to pick another parser. So these are not so much SAX features as XML features. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@c... You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5) xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
