Re: [xml-dev] DOM or SAX: Sense and Sensibility

[Joe English <jenglish@flightlab.com>]

PaulT wrote:
>
> My prediction is that the era of low-level
> lexer ( called SAX ) and low-level model
> ( called DOM)  is over and there will be
> soon more high-level bindings on top
> of these low-level APIs (or not on top of them).
>
> I think that asking developers to write all the code
> in terms of SAX or DOM APIs is like asking
> them to write programms in assembly language.

I agree; whenever I use the DOM API the very first
thing I do is to write a wrapper around it to
make it more palatable.  This is why I do most
of my XML processing in Tcl, since linguistic
extension is one of it's strong points.
This:

    element "DIV" {
	element "H2" {
	    text "Title"
	}
    }

is infinitely preferable to this:

    set n1 [dom::document createElement $doc DIV]
    set n2 [dom::document createElement $doc H2]
    set n3 [dom::document createTextNode $doc "Title"
    dom::node appendChild $doc $n1
    dom::node appendChild $n1 $n2
    dom::node appendChild $n2 $n3



> [1] http://www.pault.com/pault/pxml/nxml.html
> [2] Here are two other Brutal XML Bindings
> http://web.co.nz/~grantm/cpan/index.html
> http://www.zope.org/Members/haqa/XMLKit
>
> I appreciate more URLs for brital XML bindings,
> seems not easy to find them ...

Well, there's always the tried and true toolkits from
the SGML world like Balise [1], Omnimark [2], and Cost [3]
(the latter is a Tcl extension, the first two
contain their own programming languages).

Does XSLT count?  Another good one is HaXml [4], the
Haskell XML toolkit.


--Joe English

  jenglish@flightlab.com

[1-4]: <URL: http://www.google.com/ >