Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list general@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 5205 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2000 00:15:51 -0000 Received: from mercury.sun.com (192.9.25.1) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Jul 2000 00:15:51 -0000 Received: from shorter.eng.sun.com ([129.144.250.35]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAB09911 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.144.124.45] (d-ucup02-124-45 [129.144.124.45]) by shorter.eng.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id RAA04405 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:15:51 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:15:55 -0700 Subject: Re: parser-next-gen goals, plan, and requirements From: James Duncan Davidson To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <396BAF56.4546F1E5@us.ibm.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 7/11/00 4:35 PM, Arnaud Le Hors at lehors@us.ibm.com wrote: > I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. All of my statements > are true: > > 1) DOM is only made of interfaces and can only be used if we provide > classes for it > 2) JDOM is a set of classes with a builder that works on top of SAX (and > DOM btw) > 3) given that we'll support SAX, JDOM can exist Logical progression. What I thought you were saying with that statement up there, and I wasn't alone since Brett read it the same way, was that you didn't understand why we should do any JDOM work in XRI/NG/Whatever. If we're agreed that something like a SAX++ is the core and everything else sits on top, then theres nothing to disagree about. :) What a change. :) .duncan