Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
[sorry for the weak joke, but the previous subject line has long since been transcended] On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 15:29:33 +0000, Bill de hÓra <bill@d...> wrote: > John Cowan wrote: > >> 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> BTW, as much as I agree with the "it's a TREE, dammit" position, I learned from watching the DOM WG debate whether HTML in a browsers is "really" a tree or "really" lists embedded in lists that it is more or less impossible to persuade anyone who strongly believes in the opposite point of view. That's why the W3C DOM has both tree-traversal methods and list indexing methods; it would be logically complete with one or the other, but to choose one or the other would create winners and losers, which is bad politics in the standards world.
|
