• From: Petr Cimprich <petr@g...>
• To: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:15:32 +0200

Sorry, I have sent this to xml-dev instead of perl-xml by mistake :)
Please ignore it, thanks.

Petr Cimprich wrote:

> First of all I want to say I like this version of proposal.
>
> Ad $name/{}$name: the first way would allow to keep SAX2 generators 
> compatible with SAX1, that's the only benefit I can see. I think this 
> "benefit" can be traded off against a consistency of the second way.
>
> But I have another question. start_cdata() has an empty argument in 
> current binding and data itself is provided by another call of 
> characters(). What is reason for this? Passing {Data  => 
> $data}directly in start_cdata() would make the communication between 
> SAX and DOM more straightforward and just one function would be called 
> instead of three. Am I missing anything?
>
> Petr
>

-- 
Petr Cimprich
Ginger Alliance
www.gingerall.com

• References:
  • Re: Simple SAX2 Proposal, v3.
    • From: Petr Cimprich <petr@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespaces Best Practice
• Next by Date: RE: Anothe question on entity referencing from within an attribut e
• Previous by thread: Re: Simple SAX2 Proposal, v3.
• Next by thread: RE: build your own transform (RE: infinite depth to namespaces)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread