• From: Daniel Barclay <Daniel.Barclay@d...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:57:43 -0500

David Megginson wrote:
> 
> Elliotte Rusty Harold writes:
>  > At 4:23 PM -0400 10/25/00, David Megginson wrote:
>  > >I've put a list of known SAX2/Java bugs at
>  > >
>  > >   http://www.megginson.com/SAX/bugs.html
>  > >
>  >
>  > There only seems to be one bug there and it's an implementation bug
>  > in a helper class, not an API bug. Consequently I'd like to suggest
>  > that you not call the new release SAX 2.0.1 since that implies (to
>  > me, at least) that the API has changed. That is, SAX means the
>  > general API, not a specific implementation of the API. Maybe SAX2
>  > second edition or SAX2 1.0.1 would make the distinction a tad
>  > clearer? But the real issue here is distinguishing between a new
>  > release of the implementation and a new release of the API.
> 
> An excellent point.  Any other version-numbering suggestions?

You might look at Sun's Java package versioning system.  It separates
versioning of the specification of some API from versioning of 
implementations of that specification.



Daniel
-- 
Daniel Barclay
Digital Focus
Daniel.Barclay@d...

• References:
  • SAX2/Java: Known Bugs
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: SAX2/Java: Known Bugs
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: SAX2/Java: Known Bugs
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Next by Date: Re: How to declare a param which name is in a XML file?
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX2/Java: Known Bugs
• Next by thread: More XML news your customers will be telling you about
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread