[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XInclude vs SAX vs validation
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 05:51:39PM -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > On 21 Aug 2001 17:21:57 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > The implementation time and processing cost has been pointed out > > quite a few time, I think the former is a question of getting the > > right toolkit, if you have XPath implementing XPointer is not very > > hard (took me too weeks part time). > > While I'm delighted that there _is_ an XPointer implementation, and > thank you for writing it, I really wish you'd stop claiming that > "implementing XPointer is not very hard". when starting from an XPath implementation, it's not. I really built my implementation in 2 weeks on top of my XPath toolkit and at that time I was still discovering XPath itself. > If it's so easy, why is genuine XPointer support such a rare creature? Simply that use of XML for hypertext is not widespread. Hence the delta from XPath (basically ranges) did not compell that many people to get one of their toolkit engineer to work a few weeks on it. We also suffered from the existence of the Sun's patent, this problem certainly didn't helped, I hope this is cleared now. > I've implemented the (braindead simple) child sequence portion of it, > and I'm working on improving my support for IDs in that mix, but I can't Simon, just consider this last step, assume your toolkit doesn't have DTD parsing support and interfaces, I think that ID support would suddently not be the part you would have chosen to implement, right ? The cost/benefits in that context would seems pretty heavy. What I want to point out is that it's a question of reusing previous layers to build the next generation tools. That's what makes tools more powerful and better in the end. I tend to compare SAX to assembly, it's blazingly fast, allow to completely control you data flow, etc. but what you really want is build on top. The gap from SAX to XPath or XPointer is probably like going from assembly to Lisp or Prolog, it's a lot but it should not stop people needing high level tools. > say that I find (or that many other people find) that "implementing > XPointer is not very hard." I'm certainly not a programming wizard, but > I don't think I'm also in finding that implementing XPointer (as it > currently stands) is in fact quite difficult. Taken alone, XML-1.0 + DTD, was far more work to do right than XPath + XPointer honnestly. Still you don't seem afraid to use the former. Why ? I think you got used to it, you know you have tools to provide those if needed, etc. > Sadly, claims like this have a direct impact on the kind of XPointer > spec we're like to see emerge from the W3C. The nature of that spec is Hum I'm not sure I understand fully this sentence. > going to have a direct impact on the usefulness of XLink and XInclude, > and I can't say the future looks particularly bright. It is possible that XPointer is not the right level, well not that many people uses Prolog nowadays (but I'm sure I will get mails for having said that :-), finding the right abstraction level is seldomly reached at the first iteration. However in general XPath seems a success, I have been on the xsl-list for some time now and people seems to grasp it even if there is a number of strange constructs, at least the abstraction level seems the right one (people seems to have far more troubles with XSLT execution modle than the XPath part itself). And XPointer is just a specialization of XPath for hypertext needs, so from the distance it looks like the right level for hypertext. We tried to minimize the implementation cost and amount of training needed for users precisely by reusing XPath. Now finding if XPointer is actually the right level will take more than just implementation, it will take user trial. XInclude is IMHO an excellent use to test this. Like is trying to provide hypertext tools based directly on XML. Getting through this trial is the only way to really know how far XPointer should go. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/ veillard@r... | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
|
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
|