Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ?

James Robertson wrote:

>   | You would write a layer that will plug in the existing SAX or DOM
>   | interface of your XML parser, expand the
>   | short form if detected and return, again through SAX or DOM, the
>   | expanded XML.
>   |
>   | This would need to be written only once and might work with any SAX/DOM
>   | XML parser.
> 
> Written once in what programming language?
> 
> Would this single piece of code be useable in: DOS/Windows 3.11/Window 95/
> Windows NT/all Unix flavours/mainframes/Macs/C/C++/Pascal/Ada/Java/Visual
> Basic/...
> 
> XML is a standard document format.
> 
> It is _not_ a standard set of tools, however common SAX/DOM may end
> up being.

You are right. I've been, inconsciously, extremely "java-centric".

The point I wanted to make is that by defining a mapping from the
concise form proposed by the new draft to a normalized, "expanded" XML
form, we can enjoy the advanges of both syntaxes and we can do that by
adding a rather trivial layer to existing parsers.

You are naturally right in stressing that this layer should be rewritten
for any different class of parsers.

I still feel that this is a minor point, in order to implement an XSL
processor you have to write a lot of code anyway and support for the
concise syntax would be a very small part of it.

Regards

-- 
Pasqualino "Titto" Assini  ---  assini@xxxxxxxx  
Kamus Internet Consulting  ---  http://www.kamus.it/



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