Why SAX needs namespace support

[david at megginson.com]

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.
 > > 
 > >   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"?

That's fine for Java, but since it's based on DNS anyway, why develop
a general solution that uses a slightly different notation?


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/
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)