Refactoring SAX 1.0

[andyclar at us.ibm.com]

David,

David Brownell wrote:
> There aren't that many classes in SAX 1.0, and they can be used
> as-is without "refactoring" anything at all.  And, importantly,
> without sacrificing compatibility.
>
> Or am I missing something in what you're suggesting?

Slightly.

Consider the case of an XML parser implementing org.xml.sax.Parser.
Should a DOM parser have methods to register stream based handlers?
Yet, besides the handler registration, DOM parsers would benefit
from a standard programmatic way of initiating a parse, resolving
entities, and handling errors.

And the factoring would not have to sacrifice compatibility. I'm
not completely caught up on the SAX2 discussion but I seem to
recall talk about new interfaces/packages. I thought that if
that work is going to be done, we could refactor the general SAX
interfaces and classes at the same time.

--
Andy Clark * IBM, JTC - Silicon Valley * andyclar at us.ibm.com



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)