• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: parser models
• From: "Paul Brown" <prb@f...>
• Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:12:38 -0400
• Thread-index: AcJjeeT0nSSM/yJySFWPA0eMNAoJAwBM6YVQ
• Thread-topic: parser models

> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]
> There's certainly room for both, but I'm definitely tired of 
> working in neat little boxes, whether or not I'm explicitly
> editing a document.
> Hopefully some others may find it interesting to look beyond
> the box.

I hereby deny the usefulness of the box, per se.

I am of the opinion that SAX, ((J?D)|X)OM, etc. are all aspirants for a "service-oriented" architecture for document processing.  In my world, XML is one of the least-likely inputs -- well-formed or not -- and outputs, but the generic functionality provided by XML tools -- data type/structural expression/validation, structural rearrangement (e.g., XSLT), etc. -- is of significant value.

My $0.02.

	-- Paul

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?
• Next by Date: Re: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
• Previous by thread: RE: parser models
• Next by thread: Thanks joe (WAS: How do I include JavaScript inside an XML document?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread