Re: XML Parsing using DOM parser
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean McGrath" <sean.mcgrath@p...> > [Tim Bray] > > >This may be a job for perl or python. Both have XML parsers; > >in perl and I assume python these can be up with a bit of work > >to pass everything through and let you fiddle with just the > >pieces you want. If the incoming data was generated by a > >machine it's quite likely sufficiently regular that you don't > >even need to use the XML parser, just pattern-match for the > >tags you care about. This will run faster and be less work > >to write. -Tim > > ...with the caveat that both innocent and malevolently crafted, > fully 1.0 compliant XML , may blow your application out > of the water if you by-pass WF parsing in this way. ... looks like one can always feel safer, if limiting himself to use only brutal XML subset, such as PXML (which is : attributes, elements, mixed content. No namespaces / comments / entities e t.c.) > In my opinion, skipping WF parsing is too dangerous to countenance in > all but "throwaway" apps where you can live with the gotchas. For all other > cases, I'd advocate using a parser, and/or being more specific than saying > "use XML" when tieing down interchange notations. I also agree that skipping WF parsing is 'not right' ( using XML subset or not ). For myself, when I need some XML processing, I now use XML Chunks ( http://www.pault.com ), it is fast and clean. I take the output from XSLT ( XQuery ) , I read it into Chunk, I can ( and I do ) tune Chunks with perl's regular expressions - it is like having regular expressions in XSLT. I like it. "Avoid XML parsing, replace it with some binary format" sounds 'not right'. Rgds.Paul.
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