Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Cowan" <cowan@c...> To: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...> Cc: <xml-dev@l...> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 7:19 PM > Karl Waclawek scripsit: > > > Actually, the SAX abstraction alone may be rather impractical. > > I would find it hard to map my proprietary object model directly > > to SAX without coming up with some Infoset-like abstraction first, > > even if it is not formalized. > > I would guess that that's because your object model is already tree-ish. Yes, that is likely the reason. > The TagSoup object model is a linear sequence of the following objects: > attribute names, attribute values, minimized attributes, entity references, > element names, end tags, processing instruction targets, processing > instruction bodies, close-of-start-tags, comments, and plain characters. > The TagSoup scanner delivers this object model from the input sequence of > characters using a fairly simple state machine. > > I would be hard put to it to explain *declaratively* (that is, without > using pseudo-code), how this model maps into the Infoset, yet the > result of the TagSoup parser is a sequence of SAX events which is mappable > onto the Infoset in a well-understood way. So, one can map from SAX to the Infoset and back (bijectively, I assume). Then it would be not too far fetched to say that the "SAX abstraction" is isomorphic to the Infoset, or at least some subset of it. Karl
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