• From: Ronald Bourret <rbourret@i...>
• To: "xml-dev@i..." <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:46:40 +0100

David Megginson wrote:

> Michael.Kay@i... writes:
>
>  > Perhaps a setOption(option, flag) interface would be more extensible.
>
> I could live with this, but only if the options were namespace
> qualified, i.e.
>
> [examples snipped]
>
> Do people like this?  I was almost afraid to suggest it...

I prefer this.  Once you start down the options path, there's no telling 
where it will end, even if you have a very big stick for fighting off all 
the options people want.  set/getOption at least has the virtue of being 
forward-compatible -- on any option it doesn't recognize, setOption fails 
and getOption returns false.  Also, are all options true/false?  If not, 
the option value should be Object, not Boolean.

-- Ron Bourret


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...)

• Prev by Date: C++ parser for SAX
• Next by Date: RE: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Previous by thread: Re: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Next by thread: RE: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread