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

Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?

• To: Gregory Murphy <Gregory.Murphy@e...>
• Subject: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:31:54 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10302262302000.1011-100000@gris> from Gregory Murphyat "Feb 26, 2003 11:23:47 pm"

Gregory Murphy scripsit:

> I've given no thought to how one might handle entities, CDATA marked
> sections, DOCTYPE declarations, DOCTYPE subset, and probably a dozen other
> things.

Most of those things aren't represented in SAX anyway.  But what this model
(which I otherwise like very much) absolutely boots on is mixed content:
it simply can't represent it at all, and an incoming document with mixed
content has to be rejected altogether.

Mixed content is IMHO the greatest challenge to anyone wanting to represent
XML in a linearized way.

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@c...
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There
are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language
that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.
        --_The Hobbit_

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: Gregory Murphy <Gregory.Murphy@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by Date: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• Previous by thread: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• Next by thread: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread