xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Octav Chipara <ochip...@cse.unl.edu>
Subject Re: parser-next-gen goals, plan, and requirements
Date Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:05:45 GMT


On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:

> 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.


It is nice to know that W3C has its hears everywhere. Maybe is my mistake
for not being able to imagine such an organization very flexibile and able
to take fast steps towards the achivement of a goal... Sorry ...

> 
> > 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?

  I guess what could be cut would be the Document interface. I guess for
embedded systems you wold not not need interfaces for creating Comments,
and more or less processing instructions. Document fragments are 
very nice to have but not always necessary. Moreover, at very low level a
document fragment can be seen as a Node List. I would even dump
create CDATA because at a low level I would never use it. I prefer to have
a reference to my data and grab it using HTTP directly ... And maybe,
Entity interface I would not use it. And some of the methods of these
interfaces could be omitted without causing to much trouble. What do you
think?
 
 -Octav

> -- 
> Arnaud  Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
> 


Mime
View raw message