Subject: Re: Standard API to XSL processors From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 03:53:04 -0600 |
Tyler Baker wrote: > > > > You don't need SAX to write things out to a stream, > > > > If you don't write things out through SAX, then how can you write a > > standard-API-based post-processor without reparsing the text? > > The result tree would simply be represented by a DOM Document. I'm confused! You presented two options, writing to a stream and writing to a tree. I choose "stream" and point out that SAX is still the best standards-based way of writing the stream. Then you turn around and say that I shouldn't have an option at all: I should use a tree. > This works for XML -> > XML transformations but not for other things. The idea is that the XSL Processor > would be responsible for constructing this DOM Document. You could of course do > things the way you mentioned, but it would likely add a little bit more overhead than > constructing the DOM Document directly. But if I want ONLY a stream, it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more expensive to build a tree instead of outputting SAX events directly. Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "I want to give beauty pageants the respectability they deserve." - Brooke Ross, Miss Canada International XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Standard API to XSL processors, Tyler Baker | Thread | Re: Standard API to XSL processors, Tyler Baker |
Re: Understanding character handlin, David Carlisle | Date | Re: dl/dt/dd matching, Paul Prescod |
Month |