Re: Standard API to XSL processors

Tyler Baker wrote:
> 
> > > You don't need SAX to write things out to a stream,
> >
> > If you don't write things out through SAX, then how can you write a
> > standard-API-based post-processor without reparsing the text?
> 
> The result tree would simply be represented by a DOM Document.  

I'm confused!

You presented two options, writing to a stream and writing to a tree. I
choose "stream" and point out that SAX is still the best standards-based
way of writing the stream. Then you turn around and say that I shouldn't
have an option at all: I should use a tree. 

> This works for XML ->
> XML transformations but not for other things.  The idea is that the XSL Processor
> would be responsible for constructing this DOM Document.  You could of course do
> things the way you mentioned, but it would likely add a little bit more overhead than
> constructing the DOM Document directly.

But if I want ONLY a stream, it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more expensive to
build a tree instead of outputting SAX events directly.

 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"I want to give beauty pageants the respectability they deserve."
            - Brooke Ross, Miss Canada International


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list