• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:48:28 -0800

Tim Bray wrote:
> 
> At 09:57 AM 11/18/99 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> >The technique I used in Sun's parser may be good for many folk to steal.
> >It involves using the standard Character.getType() method (which has
> >access to lots of Unicode tables, and in recent JVMs uses native code
> >to quickly access them) and then filtering that output by the rules in
> >the XML spec.
> 
> Fine, but the Lark technique *doesn't* require storing any Unicode
> tables and thus uses an order of magnitude (probably) less memory; or
> am I missing something? -T.

If you're using Java, there's no incremental cost to using the
tables that already exist -- that's already been paid, whether
you use Lark or not.  That "filtering" stuff doesn't take very
much code at all.

- Dave

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • Re: XML Memory Requirements (was Re: Feeling good about SML)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Memory Requirements (was Re: Feeling good about SML)
• Next by Date: RE: Do SGML and XML co-exist?
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Memory Requirements (was Re: Feeling good about SML)
• Next by thread: Re: XML Memory Requirements (was Re: Feeling good about SML)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread