• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,"XML Dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: To tree, or not to tree ...(was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>
• Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 10:50:27 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1024-A561CD924C0011D79B260003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

> mc@x... (Mike Champion) writes:
> >>> You claimed that a parser *has* to model the XML instance as a tree.
> >>> DOM-type parsers do, but SAX-type parsers just don't.
> >>
> >> No, I didn't. But I can see the tree from the maps :)
> >
> >Ooooh, this is getting into deep philosophical territory ... "If a
> >tree grows from the SAX forest but there is no one there to see it, is
> >it still a 'tree'????"  <grin>
>
> Sometimes I want to treat it as a tree, sometimes I don't.  As long as
> no one tells me that it must be a tree, I don't really care.  Seems
> easier that way.

Quite. In my current app I just get special graphs ('special' in the
euphemistic sense - i.e. one who takes a lot more looking after).



----

http://dannyayers.com

• References:
  • Re: To tree, or not to tree ...(was Re: The subsetting has begun)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: [ANN] Sarissa, a cross browser JS API for DOM extentions
• Next by Date: Re: getting undisered results , when trying to display japanese characters
• Previous by thread: Re: To tree, or not to tree ...(was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• Next by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread