XML API specification

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Wed Feb 26 16:59:18 GMT 1997

At 10:59 AM 26/02/97 -0500, Gavin Nicol wrote:
>Quite. I think we can model these objects in a number of ways
>though. I would personally like to define the objects in IDL
>*and* SGML... (for information on IDL etc. look at www.omg.org).

Fortunately, we're not starting from scratch.  We have two strawman
interfaces on the table right now, NXP and Lark.  Seems to me that
since XML is particularly likely to be processed in the client, you
could do a lot worse than a Java API - the idea of having a
set of superclasses for Element, Attribute, and so on seems awfully
desirable to me.  [Confession - I've been too busy putting proper 
attribute defaulting in Lark (hard!) to even get around to looking at 
the NXP interface, so I have no comment as to which straw I prefer at 
the moment].

I would propose seriously that Java be the basis of the first 
cut at an API spec; it is really very pleasingly clean,
and also has the virtue that ideas can be tested more or less
instantly because there's running parser code to graft them
onto. - Tim

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa at ic.ac.uk)

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list