[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Alaric B Snell wrote:
> You can have an entire SAX pipeline without a single byte of XML; a
> database backend that emits SAX events 'faking' an XML document that
> goes into an XSLT engine that outputs a string of HTML. No XML actually
> involved! There's a conceptual 'virtual' XML document that exists
> between the database and the XSLT engine, but no pointy brackets were
> harmed in its construction :-)
What would that virtual XML document be encoded in?
> All the guy is proposing to expand upon is the idea that element and
> attribute content be optionally presented by the SAX API as native
> values, where the SAX parser has enough information to do so.
Why does this need to be done within SAX?
> It doesn't have to be non-Unicode, now, does it? It would be quite
> useful for normal XML with an associated schema, too. The original
> poster was coming at this issue from the viewpoint of binary encodings
> where it's more efficient to present the code directly with a native
> integer than to convert from two's complement form to text only to have
> the application convert back again - but the application of a
> typed-values-in-SAX interface is wide than that!
Efficient maybe. Whether it's more effective is another matter.
Bill de hÓra
--
Technical Architect
Propylon
http://www.propylon.com
|
