[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] 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
|
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
|