xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal for addiction to the Sun XML Java API
Date Sun, 28 Nov 1999 00:28:54 GMT
Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus wrote:
> Personally, for the record, I am personally not too warm on calling these
> "Sun's XML Java API".  For one thing, I'm not sure what the story is with
> SAX at this point... is Sun taking it over?  For another, if Sun just
> wanted to define the javax.xml.parsers interfaces as part of a community
> process, that would be OK (I guess), but claiming that DOM and SAX are part
> of an overall Java API for XML specification rubs me the wrong way.  Why
> can't these things balance across the community?  Does every well-used Java
> interface have to funnel through Sun?  Maybe I just don't get some big
> concept.  (Speaking as an individual as always...).

Let me say something.

I don't give a shit about the names used here. I picked up something to
let you understand what I was talking about.

Now. I want to be able to use XML indipendently from the components used
to come up with it. As much as I don't care what happened behind my http
request as far as I get the response I want back.

I'm in no way affilated to Sun so I speak for myself here: I don't care
_who_ gives me the API as soon as I have them and they are widely
available enough to make me happy.

I build XML applications. I _WANT_ APIs that get my XML job done.

If SAX and DOM were complete, I'd be the happiest person on earth. In
fact they are not. So you need something to fill the hole. This
something is what Sun is trying to implement. Is this wrong? is this
taking over?

If they changed all DOM and SAX API, yes, but you'd hear me screaming
all day long on all XML-related mail lists. But they did not. They
filled the holes, allowing you to create a DOM tree or to get a
validating SAX parser.

Is it such a problem to have a couple of hooks in a standard package
like "javax.xml" to have instances of the classes you need? Why is this
hurting so much?

I repeat it: XML without APIs is nonsense. Portable data with no
portable access.

I welcome any effort in providing the community with a solid foundation
of APIs. Also, I will send my feedback (as I already did) and I'll make
myself heard in case something is not correct.

This is what happens at W3C, anyway. And nobody ever complained.


View raw message