Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...> writes:
> 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.
Writing (and changing) code is easy -- getting people to agree to
stuff is difficult.
We already had a long discussion about these names a couple of months
ago, and now that SAX2/Java is almost finished, I am very reluctant to
change them. Of course, anyone working from a beta is taking her own
risks, but it seems somewhat gratuitous to mess up the books that are
already on their way to press or the applications already under
development with an arbitrary name change at this point.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson david@m...
http://www.megginson.com/
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
|
