Andy Clark wrote: > > Edwin Goei wrote: > > Sorry for sounding ignorant... I was responding to the original question > > You didn't sound arrogant. > > > An alternative would be this (current?) inheritance design: > > > > StandardParserConfiguration (for only DTD validation) > > | > > +-- SchemaParserConfiguration (for XML Schema & DTD) > > [...] > > We could certainly do this with the only downside being > that the number of combinations is, well, combinatorial. :) > However, we could decide on a set number of "common" > configurations and provide a dynamic configuration perhaps > driven by some XML file so that people can more easily > tweak their own configuration. > > [Q] Do you think it would be a good idea to make a > xerces.parsers.config package just to store the common > set of parser configurations? Otherwise the parsers > package is going to get messy.
Not sure yet. Right now I think only 2 or 3 are needed. > > > 1.4.3, but I believe it is a better API design. (Currently, turning on > > validation in Xerces 1.4.3 also turns on XML Schema validation.) In > > this approach, assuming that namespaceAware is true, turning on > > This is a common problem people have: because JAXP defines > the standard settings to be NOT do namespace processing and > then the Schema code barfs unless they explicitly turn it > on. BTW, could you post a link to the discussion about what > is being considered for the next version of JAXP? Yes, I agree JAXP is a bit clunky in areas such as this. For those interested, there is a reason for this by following this link http://www.apache.org/~edwingo/jaxp-faq.html#nsDefaults. The discussion I was refering to was an internal discussion, but I believe the plan is to make a proposal to the JAXP JSR-63 expert group. (See http://www.jcp.org/.) BTW, I am not the spec lead of JAXP. -Edwin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
