OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: [xml-dev] Article on

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

> I think we've all implicitly agreed that Source is pretty 
> useless. The 
> primary argument in its favor has been a lot of hand waving 
> and pointing 
> at some .NET thing, and saying, "That's even worse" but 
> nobody's really 
> stepped up to defend Source on its own merits.

I'm disappointed to see my defence of the design dismissed in that kind of
language. I didn't claim it was perfect but I did say that I thought it was
better than the alternatives, and no-one has yet shown me an alternative
that is demonstrably better.
> Here's a perhaps more useful question. Could we define an alternate 
> source interface that would allow validators, transformers, and query 
> tools to hook into arbitrary models? 

Only, I think, by forcing the "arbitrary model" to implement some kind of
standard interface like SAX or DOM - and that would defeat the whole
purpose, even if it were an improved SAX or an improved DOM.

The current design has enabled me in the latest Saxon release to support a
PullSource derived from a StAX parser, without adding further overloaded
methods to the transform() interface. The new kind of Source also
immediately becomes available to other interfaces such as the URIResolver. I
don't see an alternative design on the table that would achieve that level
of extensibility. 

Michael Kay


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS