Personally, I'd rather have it clean. On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 15:56, Andy Clark wrote: > Elena Litani wrote: > > I propose we rename startEntity() and endEntity() to startEntityRef() > > and endEntityRef(). > > The real question is how much do we want to deviate from SAX. > We originally designed XNI to be as close in naming to SAX as > possible so that it would be familiar for XML programmers to > move to XNI. However, we've already deviated in regards to > method parameters, etc. > > So, what do people think? Should we go further to "clean up" > the XNI API? > > -- > Andy Clark * [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
