Arnaud, who is the "you" being addressed? I notice you sent "To:" a Xerces list, not the SAX developer list...
Please reread my original response. I said that could be done, but doubted it would be beneficial since it would just increase the number of optional (== bug-friendly) code paths in layers using the API. (No RFE filed yet either, FWIW.) Re "particularly painful" ... it's unclear what you mean by that, but please remember that this problem arose because W3C defined specs that are self-inconsistent. If you're just saying don't want painful API transitions, then I hope you won't find disagreement! That's been the whole premise of SAX2 "extensions" from day one. - Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnaud Le Hors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [Sax-devel] Re: SAX and namespace attributes > Are you ruling out the option of having a new feature that allows the > application to ask for the new behavior? This feature off by default would > allow for changes while keeping full backwards compatibility. > I know in SAX2 you decided to reinvent most of the interfaces but I hope > this isn't to say that it's the only way new versions will be defined from > now on. I find this particularly painful as it very significantly raises the > cost of moving from one version to another. > -- > Arnaud Le Hors - IBM, XML Standards Strategy Group / W3C AC Rep. > > _______________________________________________ > sax-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sax-devel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
