ASPN ActiveState Programmer Network
ActiveState
/ Home / Perl / PHP / Python / Tcl / XSLT /
/ Safari / My ASPN /
Cookbooks | Documentation | Mailing Lists | Modules | News Feeds | Products | User Groups


Recent Messages
List Archives
About the List
List Leaders
Subscription Options

View Subscriptions
Help

View by Topic
ActiveState
.NET Framework
Open Source
Perl
PHP
Python
Tcl
Web Services
XML & XSLT

View by Category
Database
General
SOAP
System Administration
Tools
User Interfaces
Web Programming
XML Programming


MyASPN >> Mail Archive >> perl-xml
perl-xml
Re: Namespace support in SAX serialisers
by A. Pagaltzis other posts by this author
Oct 20 2005 9:58AM messages near this date
view in the new Beta List Site
Re: Namespace support in SAX serialisers | Re: Namespace support in SAX serialisers
& XSLT * Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@[...].fr>  [2005-10-20 11:50]:
>  Actually, I don't think that we want to specify what writers
>  are supposed to do.

I disagree, though mostly with the wording of this sentence.

I can see your following arguments, and Iâ??m not saying the spec
necessarily should specify how to fill in incomplete streams. But
if handlers are not *expected* to be able to handle incomplete
streams, then the spec should say theyâ??re not, so that when
someone hands a handler an incomplete stream and the handler
breaks, itâ??s clear whom the blame is with.

Specs should always be completely unambiguous; including being
unambiguous about what they donâ??t specify. Otherwise itâ??s not
possible to tell features from bugs. This is what Iâ??m lobbying
for.

I donâ??t really care which way the spec is disambiguated; just
that it be possible to look at the spec when a piece of code
breaks and say â??itâ??s my bugâ? or â??itâ??s your bug.â?

>  Note that I'm not saying that people should place that filter
>  between their code and the writer themselves, I think the
>  writer should do that for them. If you look at what sort of
>  object XSW returns from  its constructor, you'll see that it's
>  not what you might expect --  it's already returning a filter
>  (which it needs for some of its  escaping code).

Yes, that could be helpful.

OTOH, users can pass my code any handler they wish to; so my code
*must not* depend on the features of any particular handler.
Hence if the spec said that handlers are not required to support
incomplete streams, and my code produced incomplete streams, I
would always put the normalizing filter in place explicitly. Cf.
interoperability.

And in that case it would be better if the handler would avoid
providing any â??helpfulâ? DWIMmery at all, since that just adds
useless overhead. 

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/> 
_______________________________________________
Perl-XML mailing list
Perl-XML@[...].com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
Thread:
A. Pagaltzis
Petr Cimprich
A. Pagaltzis
Petr Cimprich
A. Pagaltzis
Robin Berjon
Petr Cimprich
Dominic Mitchell
A. Pagaltzis
Robin Berjon
Dominic Mitchell
Robin Berjon
A. Pagaltzis
Robin Berjon
A. Pagaltzis
Robin Berjon
A. Pagaltzis
A. Pagaltzis
Dominic Mitchell
Robin Berjon
Dominic Mitchell
A. Pagaltzis
Dominic Mitchell
Dominic Mitchell

Privacy Policy | Email Opt-out | Feedback | Syndication
© ActiveState Software Inc. All rights reserved