• To: lists@j...
• Subject: Re: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on tamingSAX)
• From: Karl Waclawek <karl@w...>
• Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:37:09 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <41CBC315.3020208@j...>
• References: <E1ChXnb-0004PJ-00@u...> <41CB29FA.8010201@t...> <75cb920c041223124846b805a9@m...> <1103865539.16585.12.camel@borgia> <41CBC315.3020208@j...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

Jeff Rafter wrote:
>> 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.

One thing comes to mind: database extracts.

Karl

• 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...>
  • Re: XPath and XPattern (was Re: More on tamingSAX)
    • From: Jeff Rafter <lists@j...>

• 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 taming SAX)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread