Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Ken MacLeod <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:38:22 -0600
"Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I think it's just that you've got a different use case for XPath
> than I do.
> I'm not looking for large-scale high-speed processing - I just need
> to explore and convert these critters periodically, and I'd rather
> use the more familiar world of XML processing to do it than start
> over with XPath-specific processing models.
> I've found that working with different kinds of information as XML
> is very convenient. Not necessarily efficient, and it still leaves
> a lot of work to be done, but it lets me work efficiently with a set
> of tools I understand well.
I think this topic has come up before regarding "mini-languages" with
respect to XML.
A neat utility would be a parser-tool (comparible to yacc, for
example) that would parse a syntax to produce XML output
(SAX/DOM/Grove) for the resulting parse tree.