Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Megginson <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 16:57:15 -0400
Ingo Macherius writes:
> > The problem comes if the parser tries to build a tree rather than
> > simply reporting an event stream.
> How many real world applications will be happy with just the event
> stream ? XSL-visualization always needs two trees, the parser tree
> and the resulting Formatting Object Tree (FOT). Double impact ! XML-
> querys/DOM need to build a transformed versions. Triple impact !
Yes, but often the trees can be built and discarded at a fairly low
level. For example, if I have a serialised database table like
<!-- etc., 2,500,000 times -->
I do not need to build a tree for the whole document; instead, I can
cache the information for each entry (or each n entries, for
efficiency), dump it into my SQL database (or whatever), then move on
to the next set.
The second situation is where you are using XML to serialise a data
model that is already well-defined (as for vector graphics). In this
case, it makes more sense to build the specialised object tree
directly from the event stream rather than building a DOM tree only to
tear it down. Specialised object trees can be considerably smaller
than a corresponding DOM tree, depending on the format.
All the best,
David Megginson email@example.com
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)