Edwin Goei wrote: > > > Sorry for sounding ignorant... I was responding to the original question > > > > You didn't sound arrogant.
Oops! I used "arrogant" instead of "ignorant". I think I'm becoming dyslexic or something! Hmmm... > Not sure yet. Right now I think only 2 or 3 are needed. Okay, I see us having the following: BasicParserConfiguration (simple base class) DTDParserConfiguration (renamed from StandardParserConfiguration) SchemaParserConfiguration (which would also include DTD validation) DynamicParserConfiguration And personally I'd like to have an HTML scanner and HTML parser configuration as well. So that would add to the list, as well. You think it's enough to warrant a separate package? I'll do the work if people think it's a good idea. > Yes, I agree JAXP is a bit clunky in areas such as this. For those Yeah, I knew the reasoning and mayber this would be less of a problem if Schema support wasn't enabled by default as Arnaud suggests. Because if people were forced to explicitly turn on Schema support they might be better at turning on namespace support as well. Or maybe not. -- Andy Clark * IBM, TRL - Japan * [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
