I think this is an excellent way forward and many thanks to all who are
contributing to this effort. I am prepared to make the effort to understand
it and find ways of interfacing it with JUMBO.
>
> I am fairly certain that at this point in time we should not say "maybe later"
> to groves. We should standardize parser access, event interfaces, and groves
> at the same time. We have enough developers with experience in all of these.
>
Just to check I have it right...
> An API architecture that I propose is:
>
> |---------------|
> | Grove API | <<< I assume this has similarities to JamesClark's
> |---------------| ReallySimple API ...
> | Grove Builder |
> | API | <<< different memory/storage models are implemented here.
> |----------------------------------|
> | XML Event API | << presumably fairly similar to NXP?
> |----------------------------------|
> | XML Parser API | << Corresponds to John Tigue's analysis?
> |----------------------------------|
>
[...]
> Now, I feel strongly that above APIs or what they become are developed
> together. They can certain affect how each other is designed.
I'd agree with this. Can they be developed rapidly or in
parallel so that there aren't bottlenecks/hold-ups?
> If we have these four APIs, we have the fundamental building blocks for all
> kinds of XML applications--both simple and complex. In addition, we have
> the basic infrastructure for DSSSL! (Ah, you can see my motivation now!)
If I get this right it makes the DSSSL approach and the JavaClass-per-Element
(as in JUMBO), very closely connected. The Grove API serves both purposes?
If so, that looks very exciting.
P.
-- Peter Murray-Rust, domestic net connection Virtual School of Molecular Sciences http://www.vsms.nottingham.ac.uk/