Re: XInclude vs SAX vs validation
On 21 Aug 2001 17:21:57 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > The implementation time and processing cost has been pointed out > quite a few time, I think the former is a question of getting the > right toolkit, if you have XPath implementing XPointer is not very > hard (took me too weeks part time). While I'm delighted that there _is_ an XPointer implementation, and thank you for writing it, I really wish you'd stop claiming that "implementing XPointer is not very hard". If it's so easy, why is genuine XPointer support such a rare creature? I've implemented the (braindead simple) child sequence portion of it, and I'm working on improving my support for IDs in that mix, but I can't say that I find (or that many other people find) that "implementing XPointer is not very hard." I'm certainly not a programming wizard, but I don't think I'm also in finding that implementing XPointer (as it currently stands) is in fact quite difficult. Sadly, claims like this have a direct impact on the kind of XPointer spec we're like to see emerge from the W3C. The nature of that spec is going to have a direct impact on the usefulness of XLink and XInclude, and I can't say the future looks particularly bright. Simon St.Laurent
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