Wed, 13 Sep 2000 05:38:13 -0700
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 08:31:39PM -0000, Frank J.S. Chen wrote:
> > There are two reasons for this, the most important being that xmlproc
> > is older than SAX, and so obviously could not start out with a SAX
> > interface. Secondly, the xmlproc APIs still offer a lot of
> > functionality that SAX does not, although once SAX 2.0 is finalized it
> > could conceivably start using a SAX 2.0 interface.
> > The problem is that there are a quite a few users out there that use
> > the old interface, and I don't want to break their applications by
> > changing my interfaces. Nor do I see much of a need, since SAX
> > provides a SAX-based interface to xmlproc.
> I don't know the history of xmlproc. I apologize for commenting on this
> subject without considering the historical backgrounds and the community
> But from an outside user perspective, "standard" is an approach to judge
> usability of many tools.
You don't seem to be getting it:
*) xmlproc's interface is NOT supposed to be SAX.
*) if you want SAX, then use the provided SAX tools; xmlproc will plug in
underneath it and you don't have to worry about it
It is *perfectly* acceptable for xmlproc not to have a SAX interface, and
any suggestion that that is somehow "wrong" is just misguided.
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/