Re: (more) extensible SAX
----- Original Message ----- From: David Brownell <david-b@p...> > Which productions -- the lexical ones, or the grammatical ones? I count > two layers there. (Evidently from its SGML heritage, XML doesn't have > the cleanest of distinctions between those layers, but it exists.) The > SAX API is basically a grammatical layer. Sorry for side-effect, but why do you, people, call SAX API a 'parser' or 'grammatical layer' ? In the existanse of yacc and lex - I think SAX API is a lexer. It returns lexems. Tokens. For some unknown reasons this lexer has bult-in macroprocessor. Where is 'grammatical' layer ? Wait ... Attributes? Right ? So the only thing which allows us to call SAX API 'parser' is it's ability to pack attributes into array ? Right ? If I'm right on this, this means that to move SAX API closer to 'pure lexer' - attributes should fire Attribute 'event'. For example. On another hand, SAX API could be moved into other direction. 'more parserish'. Then schema comes into to the game. We'l have a lot of fun down the road. Desiging the real XML *parser*. Rgds.Paul. PS. Or I don't understand something and yacc is using wrong terminology? I appreciate a url to the 'correct' terminology.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format