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

Re: [YML] Re: YML: A Grand Unification of SAX and DOM? (fwd)

• From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@q...>
• To: "Clark C. Evans" <clark.evans@m...>
• Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 16:06:49 -0800

> Paul, I didn't get this at all.  Sorry.

I think it's because you are concentrated on 
another task than I am. I'm thinking about 
mixing streaming and Groves for processing 
XML ( SML ) documents.
 
> On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:
> > There is also *very*  elegant
> > 'reverse-polish-notation'  approach
> > proposed by Robert ( process
> > element  when Grove is in place,
> > providing the execution stack ).
> > 
> > Not sure he was talking about the
> > execution stack, it was my attempt to
> > understand how could it work.
> > 
> > The only drawback of such a view
> > is that the  execution stack constantly
> > grows and we need to clean it up
> > sometimes.
> > 
> > However.
> > 
> > Because mutithreading approach should
> > have the same drawback, I think that the
> > workaround should already exist in the
> > source code of SP ( thanks to Sean for
> > pointing that  SP is  an existing implementation
> > of multithreading approach ).
> > 
> > No namespaces, no extra markup  -
> > just smart cleanup ( could be easier
> > than look-ahead, because the information
> > to make a descision is already 'in place',
> > right?  )
> 
> I'm talking about using a low-level recursive 
> binary distinction in syntax to unify the 
> behavior of SAX and DOM -- without *any* 
> schema knowledge of the input stream known 
> by the parser author, nor requiring any 
> external processing guidelines.  

 Your approach is : "if we'l write our document
providing some extra information, it'l be easier 
for processing API to make a desision how 
to process it".

Even I found your proposal to be very elegant, 
I dont like that idea in principle. It's the attributish 
way  when one  is marking  'road-signs'  or 'pockets' 
in the document. Document sould be about the content, 
not about the 'road-signs' , PI's,  and some other stuff

Stylesheet  is  about processing ;-)

I'l prefer to attach the 'road-signs'  at  runtime.

I see 2 ways for now  to change processing of the 
XML ( SML ) documents not changing the documents 
themselvs.

    simple SAX-based 'switcher' 
    reverse-polish-noitation view 

After I'l understand what way makes life easier for 
streaming XSLT I may write more. It is  all getting 
hard.

Rgds.Paul.





xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [YML] Re: YML: A Grand Unification of SAX and DOM? (fwd)
    • From: "Clark C. Evans" <clark.evans@m...>

• References:
  • [YML] Re: YML: A Grand Unification of SAX and DOM? (fwd)
    • From: "Clark C. Evans" <clark.evans@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX/C++ vs. SAX2
• Next by Date: Re: [YML] Re: YML: A Grand Unification of SAX and DOM? (fwd)
• Previous by thread: [YML] Re: YML: A Grand Unification of SAX and DOM? (fwd)
• Next by thread: Re: [YML] Re: YML: A Grand Unification of SAX and DOM? (fwd)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread