Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Ken MacLeod wrote: > > 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? I think so, but having an "expected format" would probably help. > This sounds like a small twist on Sean McGrath's XML Features Manifest > (XFM) idea. Got a URL? > 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). Actually I don't care if it's codified in XML or not, so long as it's also available in mortal-readable form. I really do see this as basic parser documentation, and part of the maintainer-to-user commitment. - Dave *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
|
