Lists Home |
Date Index |
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cowan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Karl Waclawek" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 7:19 PM
> Karl Waclawek scripsit:
> > Actually, the SAX abstraction alone may be rather impractical.
> > I would find it hard to map my proprietary object model directly
> > to SAX without coming up with some Infoset-like abstraction first,
> > even if it is not formalized.
> I would guess that that's because your object model is already tree-ish.
Yes, that is likely the reason.
> The TagSoup object model is a linear sequence of the following objects:
> attribute names, attribute values, minimized attributes, entity references,
> element names, end tags, processing instruction targets, processing
> instruction bodies, close-of-start-tags, comments, and plain characters.
> The TagSoup scanner delivers this object model from the input sequence of
> characters using a fairly simple state machine.
> I would be hard put to it to explain *declaratively* (that is, without
> using pseudo-code), how this model maps into the Infoset, yet the
> result of the TagSoup parser is a sequence of SAX events which is mappable
> onto the Infoset in a well-understood way.
So, one can map from SAX to the Infoset and back (bijectively, I assume).
Then it would be not too far fetched to say that the "SAX abstraction" is
isomorphic to the Infoset, or at least some subset of it.