Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 10:14 31/01/2002 -0800, Paul Prescod wrote:
>Sean McGrath wrote:
> > I'd be interested to know how much of this functionality is
> > available today in various humble, unassuming, non-meta-infused
> > tools like XML::Twig for example or XPath based mapping
> > systems.
>XPath mapping systems are typically not good at streaming.
I think it was Arpan Desai from Microsoft who talked about a subset of
XPath suitable for use in
streaming applications at XML 2001. If software had a priori knowledge of
the xpaths, then it
stands a good chance of recognizing when streaming can be used and falling
tree mode only if necessary.
>XML::Twig is software, not a standard. You can't really expect to
>distribute "XML::Twig specifications" to anyone using your vocabulary.
>For one thing, they would have to worry about viruses.
Given half an hour you, I or any of any of numerous members of this list
up an XML based mapping notation that would externalize the mapping used
in Twig and Twig-like systems.
My question is functionality based - not an argument about standards vs
Functionally, what do AFs do, that a simple, streaming mapping system based
on, say XPath (or streaming XPath subset), couldn't do?
If the answer is "not much" then perhaps their is scope for providing the
of AFs without the DTD-welded, instance affecting notation currently extant?