Re: XInclude vs SAX vs validation
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 12:41:02PM -0700, David Orchard wrote: > But I do understand your point about the amount of machinery being higher > to support these use cases. I would argue that if most xml parsers support > xpointer, then there's not too much overhead for xpointerized xinclude > versus nonxpointerized xinclude. Kind of like XML Base. I think the *big difference* between an XInclude with XPointer support is that it allows the importer to slelect precisely what he wants to embed. It's like a collage, the artist is free to pick precisely the part of the initial picture to compose its own. It is very different from a system limited to global inclusion or even including an ID, where there is a need of apriori contract between the producer of the included parts and the designer of the XInclude based document. 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). The latter is a question of improving implementations, there is a streamable subset of XPath (pointer ?) and this implies there is a streamable subset of XPointer. If toolkits were good enough they would optimize this out in an XInclude implementation, it's like any powerful language it takes times for the users and implementors to understand the costs of each features of the language and optimize to get the minimum. Should recursivity have been banned from languages because it's harder to implement, or using it may fill up the stack, no, compilers have learnt to use the right amount of resources for the job. The real question is: do people want to have the power to pick just what they need from their sources In one hand if you have a 200MBytes document source, you might be interested in selecting only a reasonable part of it, so the feature will be useful, on the other hand if you have a small document source using XPointer on it with current implementations is not a resource problem so having that feature should not be a problem. My view is that XInclude is far more useful with XPointer than without, because it doesn't require an explicit contract between the producer and the consumer of the included resources. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/ veillard@r... | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
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