From: Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>
Date: 2001-03-09T14:33:43+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:12316] Re: [ANN] NQXML v0.2.2

Jim Menard wrote:

# jweirich@one.net writes:
# 
# > I always figured a SAX parser was one that followed the SAX API
# > spec.  Since SAX is written assuming a Java implementation, deciding
# > what is SAX compliant in a different language is open to some
# > interpretation.  The NQXML parser is definitely event based, but is
# > different enough from the style of the original Java SAX that I
# > would hesitate to apply the SAX label to it.
# 
# Maybe I should stop calling it a SAX parser.
# 
# > But then, being SAX compliant is only important if you want to be
# > able to switch between two or more SAX implementations.  There is
# > nothing wrong with NQXML being a non-SAX event driven parser.  In
# > fact, I don't believe its possible to build a DOM parser on top of a
# > pure SAX parser (e.g. SAX doesn't deliver comments, so it is
# > impossible to include comment nodes in a DOM document built with a
# > pure SAX parser).
# 
# Oops. My pseudo-SAX parser delivers comments. I obviously haven't
# read the SAX spec. I should definitely stop calling it a SAX parser.
# (Now to come up with a clever name...)

I'd recommend something semi-self-descriptive that contains '-SAX' or 
'SAX-' (e.g. 'SAX-like parser') so that when people are searching 
newsgroup/mail list archives, RAA, and so on for SAX-related stuff, they 
will readily find this. Likewise, this will make it easier for the 
continual stream of new arrivals to the newsgroup/mail list to pick up on 
and follow (or avoid) subsequent discussions of this topic.

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)