• To: Aleksander Slominski <aslom@c...>
• Subject: Re: genx: canonicalization vs. pretty printing
• From: Adam Turoff <ziggy@p...>
• Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:01:56 -0500
• Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>,Tim Bray <tbray@t...>,xml-dev mailing list <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <40181026.2020905@c...>
• References: <0806139A-4C8A-11D8-905C-000A95A51C9E@t...> <p06010205bc386e70d3dd@[192.168.254.4]> <40181026.2020905@c...>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:40:22PM -0500, Aleksander Slominski wrote:
> i think that using something similiar to SAX setFeature/Property could 
> work pretty well to set optional properties such as indenting. 

-1

I strongly agree with Tim's design philosophy that genx should have as
few optional features as possible, ideally zero.  Furthermore, genx is
not an abstract specification for a family of compatible XML writers
It is a specific C library for generating valid XML output.

What you describe sounds like a good candidate for a set of SAX
extensions, actually.  :-)

Z.

• References:
  • genx - consensus items
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • genx: canonicalization vs. pretty printing
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: genx: canonicalization vs. pretty printing
    • From: Aleksander Slominski <aslom@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: What is your XML Editor?
• Next by Date: implicit StartTagClose [Re: genx - consensus items]
• Previous by thread: Re: genx: canonicalization vs. pretty printing
• Next by thread: genx - doctype?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread