• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>, SAX Developers' List <sax-devel@l...>
• Subject: SAX Underspecifications
• From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>
• Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 07:24:38 -0500
• In-reply-to: <p06010202bc7174afc6d1@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <OF9687223A.286986AF-ON85256E50.00741EC3@c...> <p06010202bc7174afc6d1@[192.168.254.4]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> Perhaps. The current situation is untenable though. Some hard choices 
> need to be made, sooner or later. As it stands, SAX is severely 
> underspecified, parsers do exhibit varying behavior, and programs are 
> not interoperable between parsers (and this is hardly the only area 
> where that is true). The failure to produce a test suite in conjunction 
> with the specification was a major error, but one I hope to begin 
> rectifying soon.

It would also be helpful if you could assemble a list of all the points 
where you think that SAX is underspecified and put them in a semi-permanent 
Web location.  That would be helpful not only for any future SAX/Java 
maintainers, but for people working on SAX-like interfaces for other 
languages as well.


All the best,


David

• References:
  • Re: [Sax-devel] Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• Next by Date: Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• Previous by thread: Re: [Sax-devel] Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• Next by thread: SAX2 Proposed Changes Committed
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread