Why SAX needs namespace support

[Michael.Kay at icl.com]

>  > 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.
> 
>   parser.setOption("http://xml.org/sax/features/validation", true);
>   parser.setOption("http://xml.org/sax/features/namespaces", false);
>   
I'm all for fully qualified names, but I don't see why we should repeat the
error of using "http://" names for things that are not accessible via the
HTTP protocol. What's wrong with
"org.xml.sax.option.validation"?

Or is this overkill anyway? Why not just say that names beginning with
"sax:" are reserved?

Mike

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)