• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: Re: Re: Divorcing Data Model and Syntax: was Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
• Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:16:31 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200210071416.KAA14775@m...>
• Organization: Jeni Tennison Consulting Ltd
• References: <200210071416.KAA14775@m...>
• Reply-to: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

Hi John,

>> That's an implementation issue. The LMNL data model is an abstract
>> description of a way of looking at textual documents. That abstract
>> description is realised in the LOM (an API that is designed to work
>> with in-memory representations of the data model), but also in SAL
>> (an event-based API).
>
> BTW, I want to urge you to give equal rights to push-based and
> pull-based LMNL event APIs.

Can you expand on that? I must admit that I remain ignorant of
pull-based XML event APIs. Is there are a good one around that we can
adapt?

Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • LMNL Pull
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: Divorcing Data Model and Syntax: was Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Next by Date: Re: XPath for Infoset extensions [was Annotations in
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Divorcing Data Model and Syntax: was Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Next by thread: LMNL Pull
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread