OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: XML API spec

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
  • To: xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
  • Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 10:52:51 +0000

In message <4109@ursus.demon.co.uk>, Peter Murray-Rust
<Peter@ursus.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <5lx6vCAzGtFzEwII@light.demon.co.uk> Richard Light writes:
>> Operation
>> ---------
>> Presumably the XML processor is a 'slave' to the application, and
>> only does what it's told to.
>I think that's right.  OTOH it may be that it's possible to build a parser
>that only does one thing and that the application decides what use to make
>of the output.  sgmls is rather like this - you either get the ESIS stream
>or nothing (except error messages :-).

I think that the "ESIS stream or nothing" case can (and should) still be
seen in API terms.  Essentially such a parser can have a very simple API
with three commands:

"open this XML document/fragment"
"deliver me the whole tree structure in ESIS format"
"close this XML document/fragment"

Looking at it this way, I'm confident that the existing implementations
can be developed to have an 'API', and we'll be on our way.

The advantage of this approach is that it is easy to extend the command
set to match the capabilities of the parser.  For example, if the parser
becomes capable of deciding whether or not to include marked sections or
comments in its "ESIS" stream, then the "deliver me the whole tree
structure in ESIS format" command can be refined to have arguments that
determine which features the user wants delivered.  (And in fact, this
is exactly what a 'grove plan' is (as I understand it).  "Give me
elements, attributes, external entities, data content."  It's a pretty
obvious concept: shame about the air of mystery around it!)

The other big issue to resolve at this stage is what in format the
parser ("XML processor") should deliver information to the application.
And that leads us (me, anyway!) to consider the "division of labour"
issue.  ESIS gives us a rather strange precedent, which perhaps think we
shouldn't take too much as gospel, even if we are all very used to it.

In the most general terms, the parser ("XML processor") has to deliver
information about the XML document to the application.  In ESIS a
sequence of textually-represented tokens indicate parsing events from
which an application can deduce the tree structure that is the XML
document: element start, element end, data content, new line in source
file, e.g.:

-Generated from ASCII file by an OmniMark script

This approach means that the application has to stay on its toes if it
wants to get the structure right.  And, fundamentally, it means that the
_application_ has the job of building the tree, whether it wants/needs
to or not.

In the SGML world, this is perhaps a reasonable division of labour,
since the parser has already done a lot of work for the application by
inferring omitted end-tags, shortrefs, etc, etc.  However, the whole
point of XML is to _remove_ all of this complexity.

I would therefore argue that in the XML world it is reasonable to ask
the parser ("XML processor") to do a bit more: to "build the tree" and
then let the application cherry-pick the bits it requires.

Having resolved that (which we havn't - comments please!), we still have
the delivery issue.  I think a valuable aspect of the ESIS aproach is
that the output is textual in nature.  In principle, we could have a
sequence of (binary) "objects" with "properties", splurging out of the
parser, but to do so would in my view limit the usefulness of the output
to a specific application environment.  Bad thing!

So, what does our "textual" output look like?  As I said above, ESIS is
a rather strange precedent.  It uses a set of conventions all of its

- a newline for certain events (but not for all);
- first character of the line is an ESIS-specific code for the event
type ("(" = start-tag; "-" = data content, etc.);
- character entities represented (uselessly) by their mapping;
- etc.

A much simpler approach, which I _think_ is what would happen in a
DSSSL-style transformation, is for the parser simply to output tidied-up
XML.  In which case, you might ask, what the heck is the parser doing
for us?  To which I would reply "about the same as what ESIS is doing
for you!"

The value of the parser will be apparent once it is able to filter out
and deliver:

- exactly those properties of the XML that the appplication is
interested in;
- any required subtree from the full document

>> View of the XML document
>> ------------------------
>> What does the application 'see' of the XML document it has asked the
>> XML processor to open?  The spec implies that it should have pretty
>> direct access, e.g.:
>>   "An XML processor must inform the application of the length of
>>   comments if they are not passed through, to enable the application
>>   to keep track of the correct location of objects in the XML
>>   document."
>> This fills me with gloom.  Shouldn't there be a level of abstraction
>                ^^^^^^^^^^
>It would fill me with gloom _if I had to write the parser_ :-).  If someone
>else has done this, and didn't mind doing it, and if the result made it
>trivial to discard comments (or other information) then it's not a problem.

Sorry, Peter, I didn't make my point clearly.  The "gloom" related to
the phrase: "... to enable the application to keep track of the correct
location of objects in the XML document".  In my view of things, the
application should _never_ have, or need, direct access to the actual
XML document.  It should get _everything_ it needs through the API.

In the context of an editing application, where one might think the
application needed to "poke" new or changed data directly into the XML
document, I would argue that the parser should be performing a read-only
operation on the source XML.  If an editor is letting the user make
changes, it is on an _in-memory copy_ of the source document (which
clearly, as several of us have noted, needs to be a complete copy).
When the user of the XML editing application decides to save their
edited result, they will be overwriting the source XML document on disc
with their in-memory copy, just as you do with any word processor.
There is no need for the parser ("XML processor") to be involved in this
stage of the process at all.

Richard Light.

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@ic.ac.uk)


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS