Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Miles Sabin wrote: > David Meggison wrote, > > I don't want to do that, but here's a possible compromise: > I think the advocates of pull would be better off defining > a completely separate API, better tuned to the very different > style of parsing and handling they need ... which isn't to > say that that API couldn't or shouldn't be part of the SAX > empire. Actually, I have already implemented a "Pull Wrapper" on top of SAX. Having two separate APIs for two completely different approaches to parsing is probably a cleaner than having a "Monser-SAX" doing everything. If someone else is implementing a pull parser, we should try to agree on a common, parser independent interface. (e.g. org.xml.pullparser.* ?). I would like it very much if we could just something similar to my current interface (I am nearly through implementing an XSchema parser using it), but I am open for everything... My wrapper is LGPL-available at http://www.trantor.de/xml It is already able to process namespaces. Best regards Stefan 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/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.
|
