• From: Ronald Bourret <rbourret@i...>
• To: "xml-dev@i..." <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 21:42:42 +0100

David Megginson wrote:

> It's worthwhile, perhaps, to ask whether there will be many XML
> applications that
>
> a) require a small footprint;
> b) need DTD information; and
> c) can use the information in a streaming format.

Point (c) is the one that gets me.  All the DTD-based applications I can 
think of eventually need a set of objects over the DTD because they are 
either analyzing the DTD or continually checking against it.

The only exception I can think of to this is Simon's validation routine in 
his layered parser, and he needs so much lexical information he's likely to 
be unhappy with an event-based DTD parser anyway.  (A quick and dirty fix 
would be to redefine validation to mean logical validation, not physical 
validation.)

(By the way, can we change ContentParticle.isOmissible to isOptional?  I 
had to think a bit before I realized what isOmissible meant.)

-- Ron Bourret


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: Re: Fast filter support in SAX2
• Next by Date: Re: SAX2: Proposed alternative DTD interface
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX2: Proposed alternative DTD interface
• Next by thread: Re: SAX2: Proposed alternative DTD interface
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread