At 05:21 PM 3/26/2001, Dean Roddey wrote:
>I think that this is a SAX convention, which is why the suppression was
>added. If the SAX spec says that such events won't show up, we can't send
>them because it could seriously freak out applications written to the SAX
>spec.
I don't think comments are even exposed via SAX events, so this would not
be an issue. There is no SAX comment event to suppress. Or is there?
>We could argue that the advanced handler, since its already outside of the
>SAX spec could be invoked no matter what, and the suppression only applied
>to the SAX specific handler I guess. But, if you are already outside of the
>SAX specification anyway, and the advanced handler is proprietary to the
>Xerces parser, you could just as easily use the internal event interface and
>get better performance and be sure that you are getting all of the info set
>available.
You're right, I should probably just be using the internal event
interface. I need the doctype declaration information anyway. I still
think comments should be passed to the advanced handler. When you speak of
better performance, are you referring to the extra function call to the
advanced handler?
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
