Re: [Sax-devel] Extension interfaces in SAX dot NET?

[Karl Waclawek <karl@wa...>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@...>
To: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@...>
Cc: <sax-devel@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 8:57 PM

> Sounds reasonable given the lack of legacy issues. I'd also suggest 
> eliminating all the deprecated interfaces from SAX1 if you haven't 
> already.

What would you then say about moving ILexicalHandler and
IDeclHandler into the core as well, or in other words,
eliminating the notion of core vs. extensions?

Karl

[Sax-devel] Extension interfaces in SAX dot NET?

[Karl Waclawek <karl@wa...>]

When porting the SAX API to the .NET environment 
- http://saxdotnet.sf.net - we decided to stay pretty
close to the original specs.

However, we have had some feedback that it would
be more appropriate to consolidate some of the
SAX extensions back into the core, as there is no
legacy to consider, and one should not start with
interface versions right from the beginning. Which means:
We would only have IAttributes, ILocator and IEntityResolver
interfaces, but comprising all the signatures of
the original IAttributes2, ILocator2 and IEntityResolver2
interfaces.

For those of you interested in .NET, what do you think
about that proposal?

Karl

Re: [Sax-devel] Extension interfaces in SAX dot NET?

[Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@me...>]

Sounds reasonable given the lack of legacy issues. I'd also suggest 
eliminating all the deprecated interfaces from SAX1 if you haven't 
already.

-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

Re: [Sax-devel] Extension interfaces in SAX dot NET?

[Karl Waclawek <karl@wa...>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@...>
To: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@...>
Cc: <sax-devel@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 8:57 PM


> Sounds reasonable given the lack of legacy issues. I'd also suggest 
> eliminating all the deprecated interfaces from SAX1 if you haven't 
> already.

Yes, that was the first thing we did. :-)

Karl

Re: [Sax-devel] Extension interfaces in SAX dot NET?

[Karl Waclawek <karl@wa...>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@...>
To: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@...>
Cc: <sax-devel@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 8:57 PM

> Sounds reasonable given the lack of legacy issues. I'd also suggest 
> eliminating all the deprecated interfaces from SAX1 if you haven't 
> already.

What would you then say about moving ILexicalHandler and
IDeclHandler into the core as well, or in other words,
eliminating the notion of core vs. extensions?

Karl

Re: [Sax-devel] Extension interfaces in SAX dot NET?

[Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@me...>]

At 2:11 PM -0400 6/13/04, Karl Waclawek wrote:

>What would you then say about moving ILexicalHandler and
>IDeclHandler into the core as well, or in other words,
>eliminating the notion of core vs. extensions?

The problem with doing that is that it requires parsers to support 
these extensions. If you're comfortable with that, OK, but it is 
extra work for impleenters, especially at first. There's also an 
extent to which these provide content that applications really 
shouldn't rely on or use in a major way.
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

Re: [Sax-devel] Extension interfaces in SAX dot NET?

[Karl Waclawek <karl@wa...>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@...>
To: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@...>
Cc: <sax-devel@...>
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 3:11 PM


> At 2:11 PM -0400 6/13/04, Karl Waclawek wrote:
> 
> >What would you then say about moving ILexicalHandler and
> >IDeclHandler into the core as well, or in other words,
> >eliminating the notion of core vs. extensions?
> 
> The problem with doing that is that it requires parsers to support 
> these extensions. If you're comfortable with that, OK, but it is 
> extra work for impleenters, especially at first. There's also an 
> extent to which these provide content that applications really 
> shouldn't rely on or use in a major way.

I undeerstand this point. My reason for asking was
basically that the same argument could be applied
to the IAttributes2, ILocator2 and IEntityResolver2
interfaces. So the question is: which extensions
really *are* extensions?

Karl