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 19:19:06 GMT
Octav Chipara wrote:
> 
> But I do not
> believe that W3C has to solve our problems. Unfortunately :-).

You're wrong there. W3C is an industrial consortium, the goal of which
is to provide the industry with the standards it needs to let the Web
grow. Both IBM and Sun are active members of W3C, as a matter of fact
both James and I along with Andy Heninger are members of the DOM WG
itself, so we can easily bring up any issue we found with the DOM.

> My worries
> are that even the core implementation is too big, that's why I would
> propose if someone wants to take a look into other possible solutions
> except DOM and JDOM. When W3C made the recomandation for DOM I do not
> belive that they had in mind that DOM would be used for embedded systems.

This is true. Having been involved in the DOM Activity since its
beginning I can tell you that the persons involved in it at first (this
is several years ago!) only represented browser vendors, authoring tool
vendors, server vendors, and users. But W3C now counts as members many
handheld device vendors and their requirements are taken into account
just like any other.

> My point is that SAX would be the solution for such small systems but it
> does not have the necessary processing power that I would like... and I
> was not able to cutdown the DOM size to be resonable for an embedded
> system. :-(. That's why I was trying to propose to move away from DOM and
> make something innovative...

The DOM Core barely contains what's in an XML document (as defined per
the XML Infoset), I'm not sure what could be removed from it if you want
any structure at all (as opposed to SAX which provides none). Could you
expand on this a little?
-- 
Arnaud  Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group

Mime
View raw message