• To: Uche Ogbuji <Uche.Ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: Re: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on tamingSAX)
• From: Jeff Rafter <lists@j...>
• Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:19:49 -0800
• Cc: David Megginson <david.megginson@g...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1103865539.16585.12.camel@borgia>
• References: <E1ChXnb-0004PJ-00@u...> <41CB29FA.8010201@t...> <75cb920c041223124846b805a9@m...> <1103865539.16585.12.camel@borgia>
• Reply-to: lists@j...
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

> I'd say only the parent stack, or shallow but very wide documents become
> resource hogs.  An extension mechanism could allow implementations to
> support sibling access, or perhaps that would be a matter of conformance
> levels (a la DOM or XAPI).

Are there a lot of use cases for a streamable but very wide document? I 
remember a thread here a while ago talking about the actual deployment 
of wide docs and it wasn't high. Not that I am arguing for preceding or 
against it-- I am just speculating.

Cheers,
Jeff Rafter

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on tamingSAX)
    • From: Karl Waclawek <karl@w...>
  • Re: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on tamingSAX)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• References:
  • RE: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on taming SAX)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on tamingSAX)
    • From: Oleg Tkachenko <oleg@t...>
  • Re: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on taming SAX)
    • From: David Megginson <david.megginson@g...>
  • Re: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on tamingSAX)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <Uche.Ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on tamingSAX)
• Next by Date: Re: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on tamingSAX)
• Previous by thread: Re: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on tamingSAX)
• Next by thread: Re: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on tamingSAX)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread