• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: genx - consensus items
• From: David Tolpin <dvd@d...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:32:46 +0400 (AMT)
• In-reply-to: <4010E596.3000107@o...>

StartTagOpen/StartTagClose+EndTag vs startElement/endElement

I think that in an implementation of XML writer startTagClose shouldn't do
anything but flip a bit. 

At the same time, if the API is on  the level of tags, I want to say the tag
is closed; in fact, I would prefer StartTagClose to be passed the tag's name
argument, same about endTag. It would help me write better programs.

If StartTagClose is to be omitted, then startElement, endElement are the names,
not startTag, endTag. And then again, it is not necessary for endElement to
be passed the element's name,  but if the API can count brackets for me,
why shouldn't it. It would make writing programs easier.

David

• Follow-Ups:
  • implicit StartTagClose [Re: genx - consensus items]
    • From: Aleksander Slominski <aslom@c...>
  • Re: genx - consensus items
    • From: Ed Davies <edavies@n...>

• References:
  • Re: genx - consensus items
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: genx - consensus items
• Next by Date: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Previous by thread: Re: genx - consensus items
• Next by thread: Re: genx - consensus items
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread