• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:06:47 -0800
• In-reply-to: <003401c1c20f$efb35590$0bf13044@tbp>
• References: <003401c1c20f$efb35590$0bf13044@tbp> <ZVVPLGFDMHFD73KGC0A8QLMIMG3VB0JF.3c80fc7f@MChamp>

Thomas B. Passin wrote:

> It would be interesting to learn what other kinds of non-xml SAX generators
> people have written.  Anyone care to say?

I've written an nroff up-converter that works by
passing SAX-like events to a tree builder.  It's
not SAX (it's in Tcl, not Java), but the moral
equivalent.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML should NOT be a new programming language
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• References:
  • Re: XML should NOT be a new programming language
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: XML should NOT be a new programming language
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Next by Date: RE: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Previous by thread: Re: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Next by thread: Re: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread