[YML] Re: YML: A Grand Unification of SAX and DOM? (fwd)

[Clark C. Evans]

Paul, I didn't get this at all.  Sorry.

On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:
> There is also *very*  elegant
> 'reverse-polish-notation'  approach
> proposed by Robert ( process
> element  when Grove is in place,
> providing the execution stack ).
> 
> Not sure he was talking about the
> execution stack, it was my attempt to
> understand how could it work.
> 
> The only drawback of such a view
> is that the  execution stack constantly
> grows and we need to clean it up
> sometimes.
> 
> However.
> 
> Because mutithreading approach should
> have the same drawback, I think that the
> workaround should already exist in the
> source code of SP ( thanks to Sean for
> pointing that  SP is  an existing implementation
> of multithreading approach ).
> 
> No namespaces, no extra markup  -
> just smart cleanup ( could be easier
> than look-ahead, because the information
> to make a descision is already 'in place',
> right?  )

I'm talking about using a low-level recursive 
binary distinction in syntax to unify the 
behavior of SAX and DOM -- without *any* 
schema knowledge of the input stream known 
by the parser author, nor requiring any 
external processing guidelines.  

Clark








xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)