Deep unjoy. Is there any reason not to do both of these things - It
wouldn't be that difficult. I remember a saying 'Things should be as
simple as possible, but no simpler'. It seems to me that this SAX effort
might be letting the quest for simplicity eliminate a whole heap of
useful applications.
> In the second case, I think that it would be a very bad idea to
> implement a JavaDoc-type facility using XML comments. JavaDoc has to
> use comments because it is not possible to extend Java syntax; XML
> allows you to define your own grammar, so the documentation can be
> part of the fundamental element structure. For example, instead of
>
> <!-- ** Record for David Megginson ** -->
> <record>
> <www>http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/</www>
> <email>dmeggins@microstar.com</email>
> </record>
>
> you should use
>
> <record>
> <doc>Record for David Megginson</doc>
> <www>http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/</www>
> <email>dmeggins@microstar.com</email>
> </record>
I agree, but your example implies that my comments were about the data,
rather than about the structure itself - I guess I should have pointed
out that I'm interested in comments in the DTD, so that the DTD can be
documented automatically. This is more like javadoc/idldoc. I'd love an
xmldoc tool. I'm guessing now that SAX doesn't give me DTD events.
I guess SAX is not that useful for me given it's intention (although I'm
pleased to see your effort). Back to the drawing board for me :(
+----------------------------------+
| Antony Blakey |
| N-Space Pty Ltd |
| Java - CORBA - SGML - XML |
| mailto:antony@n-space.com.au |
| http://www.n-space.com.au |
+----------------------------------+