[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Does SAX make sense?
- From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@mulberrytech.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:49:00 -0400
- In-reply-to: <3ED48869.2040207@emory.edu>
- References: <87609AFB433BD5118D5E0002A52CD7540453A35A@zcard0k6.ca.nortel.com><000e01c3232a$940526b0$0207a8c0@karl><014601c324f2$51b4e100$483aea0c@attbi.com>
At 05:59 AM 5/28/2003 (a week ago!), Patrick wrote:
>Another advantage is that it operates with standard XML syntax, unlike
>some proposals, such as LMNL, which has its own (non-XML) format.
This is a non-sequitur. Because LMNL has its own non-XML format does not
mean it can't operate with standard XML syntax. LMNL is a data model, and
XML syntax (or the modified "XML syntax only not well-formed" that
constitutes Patrick's JITTs proposal, for that matter) could perfectly well
be parsed into it. In fact, an XSLT transform works just fine to build an
XML representation of a LMNL model out of arbitrary XML. It has three
templates, none too complicated.
It's off-topic, I know, but I wanted to clarify the record for anyone
tracking the various approaches to overlapping hierarchies.
Regards,
Wendell
======================================================================
Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@mulberrytech.com
Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631
Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML
======================================================================
|
