Why SAX needs namespace support

[Ronald Bourret]

David Megginson wrote:

> Michael.Kay at icl.com writes:
>
>  > Perhaps a setOption(option, flag) interface would be more extensible.
>
> I could live with this, but only if the options were namespace
> qualified, i.e.
>
> [examples snipped]
>
> Do people like this?  I was almost afraid to suggest it...

I prefer this.  Once you start down the options path, there's no telling 
where it will end, even if you have a very big stick for fighting off all 
the options people want.  set/getOption at least has the virtue of being 
forward-compatible -- on any option it doesn't recognize, setOption fails 
and getOption returns false.  Also, are all options true/false?  If not, 
the option value should be Object, not Boolean.

-- Ron Bourret


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/
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)