Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The general attitude seems to be that programmers--including possibly inexperienced student programmers, which we all were at one point--should simply suffer a little and they'll learn how to fix the problem, doubtless after some gnashing of teeth and a few extra posts to the mailing lists. But I still haven't heard any reasons other than inertia for keeping the name "ContentHandler". Clearly, it's not essential. The equivalent SAX1 interface was called DocumentHandler. We don't want to reuse that name, but certainly there are other choices: ContentCallbacks, ParserCallback, XMLHandler, etc. We can save programmers time and pain by making the change now. Shouldn't we do that? +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@m... | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | The XML Bible (IDG Books, 1999) | | http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/books/bible/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764532367/cafeaulaitA/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
|
