• From: Ken MacLeod <ken@b...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: 05 Mar 2000 12:21:47 -0600

David Megginson <david@m...> writes:

> David Brownell writes:
> 
>  > I don't know about configuration file, but it does seem
>  > appropriate to say that every SAX parser should come with
>  > basic documentation including:
>  > 
>  > 	- SAX2 features/modes supported
>  > 	- default settings for those modes
>  > 	- SAX2 properties supported
>  > 
>  > Of course I think conformance statements for XML would
>  > be appropriate too.
> 
> I agree with all of this, but I'm not sure how to enforce it.  Would
> community pressure be enough?

This sounds like a small twist on Sean McGrath's XML Features Manifest
(XFM) idea.

If we come up with a list of characterists, it'd be easy to codify
that in an XML.  Then it doesn't matter if that fragment of XML comes
_with_ the package (parser) or supplied by users to a web page
dedicated to them (e.g. no enforcement is necessary).

  -- Ken

***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ANN: SAX 2.0 extension proposals.
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• References:
  • Re: ANN: SAX 2.0 extension proposals.
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Browsers, XUL, weblets [was Re: In praise of SVG]
• Next by Date: Re: SAX2 Event Sequence [Was: Re: SAX2: relative orderingofstartDocument() & startDTD() events?]
• Previous by thread: Re: ANN: SAX 2.0 extension proposals.
• Next by thread: Re: ANN: SAX 2.0 extension proposals.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread