[XML-SIG] Another SAX Suggestion

Lars Marius Garshol larsga@ifi.uio.no
04 May 1999 20:20:53 +0200

* Paul Prescod
| I would like to suggest the default error handlers do something useful:
| [...]
| Of course if that's not what a particular implementation wants, they
| can override it, but I think that the current lack of behavior is
| non-intuitive. Maybe I'm corrupted by working with SGML tools but I
| expect the defaults to be as above.

It's a good suggestion. Here are what I see as the pros and cons of
this. Pro:

 - I've been bitten by forgetting to add an errorhandler for one-off
 scripts lots and lots of times, and and I don't doubt that many
 others have as well

 - in most cases this is very likely what the user wants anyway

 - like you say, serious users will have to add something anyway, and
 ErrorRaiser is in saxutils ready for use


 - it's a departure from standard Java-SAX behaviour

 - ErrorPrinter and ErrorRaiser are in saxutils and ready to be
 plugged in

 - forcing people to take a conscious stand on this issue is probably
 not the worst we could do to them

So far I've limited myself to mentioning ErrorRaiser and ErrorPrinter
and telling people to always always always no-matter-what use one of

So far I count Paul and AMK in favour and Fredrik and Walter against.
Personally I don't have an opinion (yet), but if the discussion ends
with a 2-2 score I'll consider it a draw and not do anything.

However, it's worth pointing out that in any case, altering the
behaviour is a question of a single line of Python code (not counting
imports), so this is hardly the end of the world no matter which way
we go.

--Lars M.