• From: David Brownell <db@E...>
• To: david@m...
• Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:21:06 -0800

david@m... wrote:
> 
>  > I think we can manage compatibility as follows:
>  > - We design 2.0 so that an application that conforms to SAX 1.0 also
>  > conforms to SAX 2.0
>  > - A standard wrapper round a SAX 1.0 parser should enable it to conform to
>  > SAX 2.0, providing null/default implementations of the new features where
>  > necessary. (E.g. the response to the question "are you a validating parser?"
>  > is "maybe").
> 
> Yes, but how do we accomplish this?  Do we invent a new package name
> for SAX 1.0.1 to avoid collision?

At least for Java, there are rules (in the Java Language Specification
as I recall) defining how to do compatible evolution of interfaces.

Defining a new package name isn't necessary, but it can make the API
look and act a lot cleaner.

- Dave

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...)

• References:
  • Re: SAX Future (was Re: Oracle XML)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <M.H.Kay@e...>
  • Re: SAX Future
    • From: <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: How do XML NameSpace aware processors react to NS definations?
• Next by Date: Re: SAX Future
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX Future
• Next by thread: Dante Lee
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread