[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: JITTs and DOM

• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Subject: Re: JITTs and DOM
• From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@e...>
• Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 06:08:16 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <200210101305.JAA29379@m...> <19514849372.20021010140724@j...> <3DA58333.7080001@e...> <19218876953.20021010151432@j...> <003401c2707f$ef703160$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• Reply-to: pdurusau@e...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1

Rick,

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

>Would it be more "XML"-ish to hang preprocessing off namespaces?
>
If you mean by "XML"-ish, more inefficient, sure. ;-)

>
>So that you provide a preprocessor with a list of allowed namespaces
>or prefixes and strip the tags of the rest? "Ignore html1: and strip rdf:"
>for example. 
>
This ties the processing of the markup to the inline syntax in the 
document instance, a bad thing in my opinion. The JITTs paradigm allows 
you to impose structure upon the markup in the document instance, as 
opposed to relying solely upon the inline syntax.(There are other 
interesting things you can do reading the inline syntax and imposing 
structures during processing but we will be covering those in future 
notes on JITTs.)

This frees the user to make choices that may not have been imagined in 
the authoring of the original document.

>
>There would then be kind of overlapping WF check easily possible,
>just checking that all elements of each prefix/namespace form a
>balanced tree: one tree per namespace.  (With some scoping
>conventions for xmlns declarations.)
>
WF check would be done on processing the DTD or schema that is being 
imposed. Both require well-formed trees and the JITTs paradigm has not 
suggested differently. The imposed structure then has to meet the 
requirements of the DTD or schema, which is enforcement of both 
well-formedness as well as validity.

It is a limitation of the JITTs paradigm, which will be noticed by its 
critics once all other criticisms fail, that it requires use of a DTD or 
schema. Not necessarily for the document instance, which may not have 
one, but in processing of any document instance. Well, would not 
necessarily have to be a DTD or schema but some specification of what 
structure is alllowable in this document, assuming you wanted the JITTs 
parser to recognize only part of the markup. A JITTs parser without a 
DTD or schema or with a "regular" DTD or schema, should produce the same 
result as a standard XML parser.

Patrick




>
>Cheers
>Rick Jelliffe
>
>
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@e...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: JITTs and DOM
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • JITTs and DOM
    • From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@e...>
  • Re: JITTs and DOM
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
  • Re: JITTs and DOM
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Processing huge XML files
• Next by Date: Re: Processing huge XML files
• Previous by thread: Re: JITTs and DOM
• Next by thread: Re: JITTs and DOM
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread