Peter S. Housel wrote:
> I'm considering starting work on an XML parser (written in Dylan)
> , but
> I was waiting to see what sort of consensus the XAPI discussions would
>
> come to.
There doesn't seem to be much disagreement on XAPI-J 1.0, probably
because there isn't much to it; so far it's really just elements,
attributes, and events (the events are not done yet). Before going
forward I think it would be good to see some implementations of XAPI-J
other than DataChannel's.
XAPI-J is limited to Java. You might be more interested in the work of
the DOM which is language independent and much more encompassing than
XAPI-J 1.0. This work is limited in scope compared to the grove work of
DSSSL. The goal of XAPI-J 1.0 is to simply come up with common method
signatures for those methods which are present in the existing
processors. This allows for implementation independence for the
processor consumer.
-- John Tigue Programmer jtigue@datachannel.com DataChannel (http://www.datachannel.com) 206-462-1999
--------------9F6DC39D18C68AEC757A677D Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for John Tigue Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard fn: John Tigue n: Tigue;John org: Datachannel adr: 10020 Main St.;;#205;Bellevue;WA;98004;USA email;internet: jtigue@datachannel.com tel;work: 462-1999 tel;home: 498-4708 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE end: vcard
--------------9F6DC39D18C68AEC757A677D--