xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arnaud Le Hors <leh...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: parser-next-gen goals, plan, and requirements
Date Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:50:14 GMT
Octav Chipara wrote:
> 
> 1) True! ... But my only problem is that when you are using various
> subsets of DOM, are you still having a compliant W3C recomandation? I
> believe that we should actually develop a new set of interfaces rather
> then using a subset of DOM! If we are starting from scratch we might get
> better results than trying to subset DOM! Many of us try to build
> applications which understand XML for embedded systems and I see great
> value in having a DOM-like implementation for such systems. Do you believe
> using a subset is good enough?

The Xerces DOM implementation currently supports almost all of the DOM
Level 2. This is the Core + several optional modules, such as mutation
events, traversal, etc... Every optional module makes the whole thing
bigger in memory and slower. To start with, we can have an
implementation with just the Core. But we can do much more. This
includes things like being readonly, and/or not providing fast random
access a la getChildNodes().item(i). We currently have a cache for that
which costs us in memory. There are many things like that we can do, all
within the scope of a compliant implementation. And as we work on this,
if there is anything in the DOM that gets in the middle we can always
bring it up to W3C and look for a solution there.

> 2) The second part regards a higher level tool which I would love to have.
> Something to map the structure of a XML document directly on a structure
> defined in a programming language ...
> ...
> Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Sure. There are already several tools that do that. I don't have any
pointers handy though, but I'm sure someone else on this list has some.
-- 
Arnaud  Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group

Mime
View raw message