[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Parser structure (historical background question)
On Wednesday 21 November 2001 03:00 pm, Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > I'm curious how it came about that (at least for SAX) validation was > incorporated into the parser. It'd seem to make a lot more sense to have > it as a separate layer that works off a parse event stream. This type of > approach would vastly increase the flexibility (allowing validation to > be just another pipeline step) without substantially adding to the > costs, as far as I can see. > > Any comments? Historically, SGML *required* validation of the parser, so many of the early discussions around validation assumed this. I forget who first noted that validation is orthoganal to parsing, but I know I was an early proponent of "lazy validation". Tim Bray's Lark/Larva good example of a pipeline approach to this. I have no idea why later parsers added early validation. It still seems like a bad idea to me...
|
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
|