Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: David Brownell <email@example.com>,Eric van der Vlist <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 20:40:40 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Which productions -- the lexical ones, or the grammatical ones? I count
> two layers there. (Evidently from its SGML heritage, XML doesn't have
> the cleanest of distinctions between those layers, but it exists.) The
> SAX API is basically a grammatical layer.
Sorry for side-effect, but why do you, people, call SAX API a 'parser' or
'grammatical layer' ?
In the existanse of yacc and lex - I think SAX API is a lexer.
It returns lexems. Tokens.
For some unknown reasons this lexer has bult-in macroprocessor.
Where is 'grammatical' layer ? Wait ... Attributes? Right ?
So the only thing which allows us to call SAX API 'parser'
is it's ability to pack attributes into array ? Right ?
If I'm right on this, this means that to move SAX API closer
to 'pure lexer' - attributes should fire Attribute 'event'. For example.
On another hand, SAX API could be moved into other direction.
Then schema comes into to the game.
We'l have a lot of fun down the road. Desiging the real XML *parser*.
PS. Or I don't understand something and yacc is using wrong
terminology? I appreciate a url to the 'correct' terminology.