SAX/C++ vs. SAX2

Lauren Wood lauren at
Fri Dec 3 19:57:27 GMT 1999

On 3 Dec 99, at 11:32, Tim Bray wrote:

> At 01:21 PM 12/3/99 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
> >1. To get some kind of standard Namespace support (or at least a way
> >   to tell whether a parser has Namespace support built in).
> >2. To query parser features in general.
> >3. To get at the stuff that SAX 1.0 doesn't report, like comments,
> >   CDATA boundaries, and DTD declarations.
> >
> >I think that there is a real need for #1
> >I think that #2 would make life a fair bit easier for library developers
> >I have a lot of trouble with #3
> Agreed, on all points.  The unavailability of namespaces threatens
> to make SAX unusable before too long. -Tim

I think SAX availability of namespaces would be useful; the DOM 
Level 2 (soon to be a Candidate Recommendation, which means 
"please implement and tell us whether it's possible") has 
namespace support and the proliferation of SAX to DOM builders 
means it would be good if SAX and DOM could support more of 
what the other needs.

I have mixed feelings about CDATA sections; they're useful for 
things like writing scripts that are embedded in XML documents, so 
I'd rather have them available, but I can see that not every 
application needs them.


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

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list