Hi Andy, I'll try to keep this short: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >So do you have an updated forecast regarding when you think you'll be done? or close enough to warrant a new beta release? I'd be inclined towards putting a beta off until we have a significant amount of stable schema features to boast about. And perhaps that could be in a month or less... >> But you've already got an XMLEntityResolver in the xni.parsers directory. >> If we want this class to be optimally useful, then it makes sense to change >> it so that it's good for more than DTD location, IMHO. This would seem to >> involve passing some kind of LocationHint interface to its ResolveEntity >> method, as Sandy/Petr/Curt were discussing. >What threads were these discussions in? I can't seem to find them now. The discussion in the "[XERCES2]: how do we want grammar caching?" thread seemed to be moving in that direction. I think Sandy might have a more concrete proposal to make in a little while. >> Validation is already contemplated in the pipeline and we've got to provide >> some standardized, general way for validators to find their food. >We have a generic mechanism for that -- we don't need to modify XNI to provide an additional mechanism for something that is implementation dependent. But that mechanism nay well not be generic enough for many applications. But see that thread. >> I think it would be useful to have some kind of really general (empty?) >> Grammar interface simply so that GrammarPools (or GrammarResolvers or >>> whatever we call them) have something other than Object to return. But I >But that doesn't need to be in XNI for it to be defined and used by the Xerces2 reference implementation. No, but it needs to be publicly accessible somewhere so that users can override whatever default implementation of grammar caching we provide. Cheers, Neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
