SAX and Standards Bodies (was Streaming XML?)

[David Megginson]

Tim.Shaw at wdr.com writes:

 > I nearly jumped in early in this conversation to agree with the
 > 'others' - ie the SAX approach is just as important as DOM and the
 > 2 should both be of similar (standards) status.

Thank you very much for the suggestion (and for the implicit vote of
support), but I'm afraid that handing SAX over to a standards body
would be its doom.

Right now, SAX is an open spec designed in public view on the XML-Dev
mailing list -- we all get to see each-others' unpolished, stupid
ideas as soon as they emerge, and we knock them back and forth until
they look like something.  

The alternative would be to hand SAX over to a standards body that
might or might not set up a working group, that might or might not in
a year or two put out a working draft, that almost certainly wouldn't
look anything like the SAX we all know today.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.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)