From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,deac256a05c84a59 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: DOM and SAX parsing in Ada Date: 28 Jan 2005 05:23:48 -0500 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <41900010.D28DD400@boeing.com> <9CWjd.17305$5K2.1356@attbi_s03> <1106223415.857525.176640@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <41F4DB6F.4090909@mailinator.com> <35nh12F4oe4caU1@individual.net> <35t2u6F4qc335U1@individual.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1106907849 91262 212.85.156.195 (28 Jan 2005 10:24:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:24:09 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8047 Date: 2005-01-28T05:23:48-05:00 Nick Roberts writes: > I agree entirely, and the changes I wanted to make -- and I made this clear > to the AdaCore employee -- were precisely designed to obviate this problem, > by allowing the maintenance documentation to be placed in separate files. > The changes I wanted to make were to place commented tags in the source > code, so that the external documentation could readily refer to fragments of > code (by tag). > > It was this approach which the employee specifically rejected. The essence > of what he said was that: no maintenance documentation was necessary (the > source code was self-documenting); in any case, any such documentation > should be entirely in the form of comments in the source code. I think he is > seriously wrong on both counts. Ok, I agree with you stongly here! > The issue is whether I should: > > (a) create a fork of Ada/XML and develop it; > > (b) create a new Ada XML DOM package from scratch, and develop it; > > (c) design and create a new Ada XML I/O package, and develop it. You left out: (d) create a separate repository of documentation for XML/Ada This option satisfies most of your immediate goal. It does not have the links from the code to the documentation, but that can be handled in other ways (admittedly not as nice). > My objectives are: > > (1) to provide an Ada XML I/O package which I can use for my own specific > purpose (a literate programming 'reverse tangle' tool); > > (2) to make this package available for the benefit of the Ada community. > > Regarding objective (1), I need a package that can read a DTD (a very big > and hairy one, in fact) and expand the general entities declared in it. > Validation would also be nice. XML/Ada version 1.0 doesn't support all the > functionality I need (nor validation) Ok. Did AdaCore comment on the usefulness of this functionality? That is, would they view it as a valuable contribution, worth their time to integrate? > -- and it has no maintenance documentation. Which is not a show stopper, just a problem, which can be solved even without AdaCore's cooperation. -- -- Stephe