Lists Home |
Date Index |
Bob Wyman wrote:
> Thomas B. Passin wrote:
>>But presumably the alternative "quasi-xml" you will be
>>testing will not likely be producing SAX events, but
>>instead some proprietary parse system instead.
> Why would this be assumed? It seems to me that SAX has proved
> its utility and that anyone who builds an alternative to XML should
> probably ensure that an XMLReader can be built for it that behaves as
> a normal SAX reader would. The application user should be shielded as
> much as possible from concern for the on-the-wire or on-disk format of
> the data they are working with. I suspect that a format that was
> somehow "incapable" of producing SAX events faithfully is probably
> fundamentally flawed in its ability to represent XML documents.
I didn't mean that I assume this will always, or that such an alternate
system *couldn't* produce a SAX event stream. I only question whether
they mostly *will*.