Ted Leung wrote:
> -0 I still think that editor writing is out of the scope of
> the parser, but I may be the only one who thinks this.
The content model callbacks are not for editor writers, per
se, but rather to make it easier for the DTD validator to
construct the appropriate content models. Requiring everyone
to re-parse content models when all that work had to be done
in the scanner to assure well-formedness seems like a waste.
Which is why we put the XMLDTDContentModelHandler in there
in the first place.
The changes I proposed were to make things balance better.
Also, the "startContentModel(short type)" method caused
some implementation irritation that would be alleviated by
the interface changes.
> > For convenience, would it be useful to also pass the
> > expanded systemId as well
>
> We should only pass the expanded systemId if there's no way to construct
> it from the rest of the data -- which there is in this case.
Seems fine to me since it *can* be re-constructed from the
systemId and baseSystemId. Would be nice to have a utility
class to do this (or a static method on the URI class).
> Can we break this out as a separate discussion. I'd really like to
> see this work, and I think I have some time to put towards making
> this work.
Sure, I'll do just that. And I'll post the interfaces I
have already made up but haven't checked in.
--
Andy Clark * IBM, TRL - Japan * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
