URGENT: SAX and JSR 206 (JAXP 1.3)

Several months ago (The list archive[1], as identified by List-Post:
seems to be down so I can't point to the message), Jeff Suttor
started a thread on this list about changes to SAX that JAXP needs and
that need to be "final" before JAXP ships.

The consensus on the list seemed to be that it was (a) inappropriate
for JAXP to make changes to SAX and (b) unnecessary for the features
we need. Several alternatives were suggested, among them the existing
SAX2 Extensions classes and more generally the extension mechanism.

As one of the spec leads for JSR 206, I want very much to participate
as a good "net citizen" in the development and deployment of SAX. I
certainly want to avoid any impression that we're somehow trying to
make inappropriate changes. We aren't.

However, we have hard deadlines and products that have to ship. I see
a very nasty problem looming on the horizon and I am desperately
seeking your aid in resolving it.

The problem in a nutshell is that JAXP needs to expose some features
of the infoset (for example, the XML version information from the XML
declaration) that aren't available in standard SAX.

We initially offered to provide patches to SAX to support access to
the information we need. Those were rejected for the reasons I
mentioned above. Fair enough.

Two alternatives seem to exist:

1. Use the existing "SAX2 Extensions" to get access to this
information. I think that's a fine answer. But there's a nasty
procedural problem we need to overcome. The SAX2 Extensions library is
currently labeled[2] "1.1beta1". I don't believe I'm going to be able
to get JAXP through the JCP process with a normative reference to a
standard that's labelled "beta".

2. We could use the existing extension framework to write our own
extensions. But I fear that we'd naturally wind up with something that
was effectively the same as the existing SAX2 Extensions. That seems
like both a waste of effort and an unnecessary proliferation of
classes for developers.

If the SAX developer community feels that it has achieved enough
experience with the extensions to label them "1.1", removing the
"beta" moniker, I think (I am speaking only for myself in this
message) that would resolve the problem.

If that isn't something that can practically be achieved in the
timeframe available, I will be desperate for some other solution.

Your advice is most sincerely solicited.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

[1] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=sax-devel
[2] http://sax.sourceforge.net/?selected=ext

-- 
Norman Walsh <[email protected]> | If today was a fish, I'd throw it back
http://nwalsh.com/            | in.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBABrTcOyltUcwYWjsRAgZvAJ4iuzfhDEZvNjIhiy+s5ceoZbZwXgCeL19D
XpGl6JdX9V3PVZs/90tn/gA=
=zItG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----