SAX is not XML (Key() Re: Saxon VS XT)

Subject: SAX is not XML (Key() Re: Saxon VS XT)
From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 19:19:49 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen

> > > Not using key, is like having to use Perl
> > > (or any other programming language) without being allowed
> > > to use hash tables for lookup purposes.
> >
> > Poor C, ( and Pascal )  they  had no build-in hashtable support.
>
> No.  I am talking about not being allowed to use the technique at all.

XSLT is using this technique already. There is some intersting twist,
I'l write more later.

> No.  I just think that your reference to "most developers" is incorrect.

If it make us closer to any  solution let us agree that
"most developers" will use key(). I don't care listening
that I'm an idiot, if it get's some fair argumentation, because
I'm concentrated on the technical problems but not
on the style of presentation and style of discussion
of those problems.

I'l explain the particular problems with current key()  semantics
in a huge letter which I'm writing for last 5 hours.  Thanks to
all who participated in the thread.

> > "XT has many limitations because it is not 100% conformant
> > but conformant engines have no limitations because they are
> > conformant"  ( to me the only possible argumentation  is key()
> > and as I already wrote to Sebastian privately - I need at least
> > 2 weeks to implement my model of processing his XML
> > real-life data without key() ).
>
> Why not use the two weeks to implement key() in XT instead O:-)

My next letter will have  the answer for this also. The answer is
shocking, as it was shocking for me to realize what have really
happened 5 hours ago. The answer was in my letters, but I was
not seeing it.

> > Those lost souls who still think that storing massive volumes of
> > data in the format of huge text files and then use key() hack to
> > 'improve the speed of processing' - is reasonable usage of
> > computers - I can not help them ;-)
>
> If that is your concern, why are you using XML in the first place ;-)

I'm not  using XML files for anything but tiny configuration files, simple
web-pages, layouts and other stuff like this ( this is what  XML
syntax is good for ) I occasionaly made a mistake using XML syntax
to express some templating language, but then I corrected
my craziness with XSLScript, so - no more abusing XML syntax
for something which could be better done in Yacc.

Of course,  I intensively use *SAX* - this means I'm using some
subset of  XML *model*. But because the subset I'm using
is extremely generic, it should  be called 'MinML', not  'XML'.

PXSLSevlet takes SAX events out of SQL database, feeds XT
with the stream of SAX events and then XT produces HTML.

Where is 'XML file' here? Is there any need for that 'XML file' ?
No need.

Where is the 'XML model' with all those PI's e t,c ?
No need.

I almost not use most of XML macroprocessing constructions
( they are evil and could be easeily implemented in XSLT ).
For example I'm using <X/> + <xsl:template match="X">
to render the word  'XSLScript' but  not the entity  &X;

I'm trying to use the reasonable subset of any technology,
when I use it, because I belive in common sense.

Common sense says me that SQL is good for storting
relational data. To me SQL is *not* "select bla-bla from dual".

I don't understand how can I express this better.

Perl, or 'java' or 'XML' is not a panacea.  XML *syntax*
is good for some limited number of applications.
( mostly 'dumb data' ). XML *model* is bloated
with fake entities - which requires the bloated API's.

But because SML-dev list have produced the really
usefull subset of XML model and because XSLT produced
really useful processing technology ( more in my huge
letter ) - I'm taking those 'parts of XML' which I need -
and that's it.

I don't think storing Sebastian's data in plain text file
is appropriate. But I understand why he does it.
He is using the best free technology he has
at the moment.

In 10 years he'l get a better tools. ;-) ( OK - he already
has something and will get some more tools much
faster than in 10 years.)

Rgds. Paul.




 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread