Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
----- Original Message ----- From: David Brownell <david-b@p...> > Which productions -- the lexical ones, or the grammatical ones? I count > two layers there. (Evidently from its SGML heritage, XML doesn't have > the cleanest of distinctions between those layers, but it exists.) The > SAX API is basically a grammatical layer. Sorry for side-effect, but why do you, people, call SAX API a 'parser' or 'grammatical layer' ? In the existanse of yacc and lex - I think SAX API is a lexer. It returns lexems. Tokens. For some unknown reasons this lexer has bult-in macroprocessor. Where is 'grammatical' layer ? Wait ... Attributes? Right ? So the only thing which allows us to call SAX API 'parser' is it's ability to pack attributes into array ? Right ? If I'm right on this, this means that to move SAX API closer to 'pure lexer' - attributes should fire Attribute 'event'. For example. On another hand, SAX API could be moved into other direction. 'more parserish'. Then schema comes into to the game. We'l have a lot of fun down the road. Desiging the real XML *parser*. Rgds.Paul. PS. Or I don't understand something and yacc is using wrong terminology? I appreciate a url to the 'correct' terminology.
|
