[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Amelia A Lewis wrote:
>>i honestly don't see the point. people working with dom or sax or xslt
> Horsefeathers.
i guess this comment is for native speakers only. i simply take it as an
expression of the deepest respect for the thing being commented on...
> DOM and SAX are pre-infoset APIs. SAX does a pretty good job of
> supplying all of the information later canonicalized in the infoset,
> partly because some parts of the infoset are reasonably logical, and
> partly because the design of SAX is sufficiently clean to support it.
i knew i was being a bit unprecise, but i thought it would be clear from
the context what i wamted to say. you are using a parser because you
don't want to handle markup, you want to use a data model.
> DOM <opinion expression-type="forbidden-word">sucks</opinion> at this.
> Super-infoset, sub-infoset, just forget infoset, because the mapping
> isn't clean.
true. dom3 will hopefully be really infoset-conformant. let's see.
> Ugh. Part of the reason that the infoset is an attractive abstraction
> is because it tried (even if it didn't quite succeed) to KISS. Adding
> more infoset items (more! more! more!) is an exercise in marginalizing
> the infoset; the more cruft shoved in, the less interesting it is.
i don't want to extend the infoset, i want to create modularized infoset
extensions. if you're not interested in them, simply forget them. if you
are (like i am interested in hyperlinks associated with xml content),
you will be happy to have them.
cheers,
erik wilde - tel:+41-1-6325132 - fax:+41-1-6321035
mailto:net.dret@dret.net - http://dret.net/
computer engineering and networks laboratory
swiss federal institute of technology (eth)
* try not. do, or do not. there is no try. *
|
