Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Megginson wrote: > Stefan Haustein writes: > > I agree that Miles' proposal could be put into a separate (sax > > independent) package, in principle, but without putting it into > > SAX2 core, parser vendors would not be forced to supply the parser > > vendor file, so it would be useless... > I don't want to force them to provide that, though -- SAX is already > hard enough for implementors to get right without adding another > hurdle. If there's as big a demand as you and Miles believe, then > market pressure will convince implementors to include the > configuration file anyway, and if not, then we've saved implementors > some unnecessary work. Would adding a recommendation to the SAX documentation "please include a configuration file" be an acceptable solution? Nobody would be forced to include a conf. file, but at least the format would be clear and I could probably use Miles' extensions (or at least a simplified version based on instantiation)... > p.s. I prefer to talk about implementors rather than vendors, since > not all parsers are maintained by commercial entities. That was just a problem of stupid translation from my "internal" language (German). best regards, Stefan -- Stefan Haustein University of Dortmund Computer Science VIII www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html ***************************************************************************
|
