SAX2: Namespace proposal

David Brownell david-b at
Tue Dec 21 19:23:39 GMT 1999

Tim Bray wrote:
> At 08:21 AM 12/20/99 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
> >> - a pure namespaces view
> >> - a simultaneous namespaces and XML 1.0 view
> >> - a pure XML 1.0 view
> >
> >I agree -- I think that this is the cleanest approach.
> I have a great deal of trouble imagining a situation in which the
> "simultaneous" view is desirable or even safe.  Could someone help out
> with a use-case please?
> If I'm right, then given that SAX1 already does the pure XML1.0 view, why do
> we need more than one view? -Tim

If there's going to be just one view in the system (advantageous
overall) then IMHO it needs to be simultaneous ... unless you can
afford to punt on namespace-oblivious software, which few folk
really can afford.  (DOM couldn't, as one example.)

I think that any "single view" approach is cleaner than any kind
of "selectable view" approach.  Modes at low levels just percolate
on up the stack.  While there are places that modes are the right
solution, I don't think this is one.

- Dave

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