This is why I asked about an API being Open Source(tm) because the notion of freely distributable source code and interface definitions seem to be orthogonal to me. POSIX or the C++ STL do not have freely available documentation yet there are Open Source implementations of both (although I'm not sure there is a certified POSIX compliant Open Source implementation).
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Skonnard [mailto:]
Sent: Thu 9/12/2002 1:00 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: SAX is not a read-only API (wa RE: [xml-dev] re: XML SIG 17...)
> This is interesting, but you still need a class that implements the
> ContentHandler that is not part of SAX. You cannot write an XML
> document without adding your own non-standard, XML classes.
Sure, just like you need a class that implements XMLReader on the
reading side. I think it's clear that we have different definitions for
"API". I consider the SAX interface definitions the "API", where you
seem to define it as the implementation (and entire packaging) of those
interfaces.
-aaron
......................................................
. Aaron Skonnard, DevelopMentor (http://skonnard.com).
. Essential XML Quick Reference available online! .
. Download PDFs: http://www.develop.com/books .
......................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
