[XML-SIG] SAX parser factories (Was: PyTRaX?)

[Thomas B. Passin]

Fred L. Drake said -
>
> Thomas B. Passin writes:
>  > I favor short (non-URI) feature names.  Using URIs to get unique
strings may
>  > work well when you have the possibility of many people working
independently
>  > on many projects accidentally producing name collisions.  I don't thnk
that
>  > applies here.  Even if, say, the RDF people duplicated some of our
feature
>  > names, it wouldn't matter since they would be used in a different
context.
>
>   Why would it not apply here?  I know the "Parsed XML" product for
> Zope supports some additional features that can be checked with
> hasFeature(); why would this not be the case for other APIs which can
> support customizable features?

Well, XML namespaces envision a situation where different element of the
same name might get used in the same document.  With our features,  if I ask
for feature X on an RDF processor, it can't be confused with feature X on an
xslt processsor or feature X on a validating XML parser.  So there is no
need to disambiguate, I thought.  If there were likely to be a lot of
uncoordinated efforts all adding features to python processors, I'd see it
differently.  But I'm not hard over about it.

>   If we do go with short names, we should at least strongly recommend
> a way to formulate the names for additional features.  I'd stick with
> what's recommended for the DOM in this case; for example:
> "org.zope.dom.persistence".
>

Why, do you see a unification with java processor APIs in the future?  If
we're going to go to dotted names, let's just use URIs and be done with it.
If we use the dotted name method, would it be tied to the current package
structure?  I don;t favor that becaues what should be done if the packages
are refactored?  I favor making up a URN-like prefix and notation even if we
never register it anywhere.  Otherwise, a (possibly fake) url as others have
suggested.  If we use a url, we could consider pointing it to a RDDL-like
document that could contain machine and human readible information on the
features.

Cheers,

Tom P