Subject: Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ? From: "Pasqualino \"Titto\" Assini" <assini@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:49:04 +0200 |
James Robertson wrote: > | You would write a layer that will plug in the existing SAX or DOM > | interface of your XML parser, expand the > | short form if detected and return, again through SAX or DOM, the > | expanded XML. > | > | This would need to be written only once and might work with any SAX/DOM > | XML parser. > > Written once in what programming language? > > Would this single piece of code be useable in: DOS/Windows 3.11/Window 95/ > Windows NT/all Unix flavours/mainframes/Macs/C/C++/Pascal/Ada/Java/Visual > Basic/... > > XML is a standard document format. > > It is _not_ a standard set of tools, however common SAX/DOM may end > up being. You are right. I've been, inconsciously, extremely "java-centric". The point I wanted to make is that by defining a mapping from the concise form proposed by the new draft to a normalized, "expanded" XML form, we can enjoy the advanges of both syntaxes and we can do that by adding a rather trivial layer to existing parsers. You are naturally right in stressing that this layer should be rewritten for any different class of parsers. I still feel that this is a minor point, in order to implement an XSL processor you have to write a lot of code anyway and support for the concise syntax would be a very small part of it. Regards -- Pasqualino "Titto" Assini --- assini@xxxxxxxx Kamus Internet Consulting --- http://www.kamus.it/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can, James Robertson | Thread | Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can, Paul Prescod |
Why XSL?, Jack Fitzpatrick | Date | Re: First working draft of XSL, Jeremy CALLES |
Month |