> Please correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't the phases in the
> "life" of an XML document be summed as follows:
> Text -> Events -> Grove There is no point that I can see in going
> from a tree-based view
> back to an event stream. The event stream is merely an evolution on
> the path from text to a grove. Furthermoe, nothing I have seen in
> the SAX proposal looks anything remotely like a simplified DOM. We
> are talking about two complete different concepts here.
An event-based call-back interface would be useful for automatic
traversal of a DOM tree (rather than iterating through an
enumeration), but the callbacks should then take DOM nodes as
arguments.
Personally, I believe that an event-based interface is almost always
more difficult to use and understand than a tree-based interface -- it
requires the user to manage stacks and allocate objects herself. On
the other hand, for advanced programmers, and event-based interface
has important advantages:
- it allows linear processing of very large documents with very little
memory
- it can save the waste of building two separate trees, when the user
needs to build a different kind of tree from the XML document
For me, then, the advantage of a common interface was not to help
naive coders, but to provide a standardised low-level access to XML
documents; to strain an analogy, SAX-J would be the IP to the DOM's
TCP.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson ak117@freenet.carleton.ca
Microstar Software Ltd. dmeggins@microstar.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)