Re: Principles of XML design
On May 6, 2005, at 12:29 PM, Uche Ogbuji wrote: > What standard? Many parsers do not use SAX. There is no standard > processing model. Users do seek a standard processing model. That's > the problem. Right, and it is logically a separate problem than defining a standard syntax. Different applications have different processing requirements, so having the syntax specification define any one model would be wrong. For example, editing applications could well require a different API/InfoSet than XML databases. IMHO. This was one of the most significant issues in the early DOM specification process: the tension between different application domain requirements. > I understand your basic point. If there were a standard processing > model, that would be one thing. The problem is that there isn't, and > it's well demonstrated that this is a source of confusion. I don't in any way disagree that there is a problem, or that there should be a solution. I'm just saying it'd be better to do it outside the scope of the XML specification itself. There is no canonical processing model... and there probably cannot ultimately be a single canonical processing model, but there are coarse classes of processing styles (pull, event-driven, tree-traversal, iterator-based, etc.), some of which logically subsume the other. Some tighter specification around those would help solve the problem IMHO.
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