• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@s...>
• Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 12:40:48 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <p06010206bc713470aebe@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <200403071358418.SM05492@evanslt> <404B7BF3.7030606@s...> <p06010206bc713470aebe@[192.168.254.4]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

>At 11:45 AM -0800 3/7/04, Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
>
>  
>
>>As for filters and handlers, they should always initialize their 
>>state on startDocument(). That will prevent any errors due to reuse 
>>after attempting to parse a bad document.
>>    
>>
>
>In practice, not all parsers invoke startDocument before reporting a 
>fatalError. Currently it is not safe to assume either startDocument 
>or endDocument will be called. :-( At least one of these should be 
>absolutely guaranteed.
>
That's ugly. Perhaps the startDocument() guarantee should be expanded to 
say that it'll be called before any other method in *any* of the 
handlers (instead of just ContentHandler and DTDHandler, as it states 
now). I'd think that the only error conditions that can occur prior to 
what I'd consider the start of the document are IOExceptions, which 
don't need to go through the ErrorHandler.

  - Dennis

• Follow-Ups:
  • OT - CSS - thoughts on non-compliant browsers
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>

• References:
  • RE: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
    • From: "Kirk Allen Evans" <kaevans@x...>
  • Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
    • From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@s...>
  • Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• Next by Date: CAP (Common Alerting Protocol) needs review
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• Next by thread: OT - CSS - thoughts on non-compliant browsers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread