DOM vs. SAX??? Nah. (was RE: Storing Lots of Fiddly Bits (was Re: What is XML for?)

[David Megginson]

keshlam at us.ibm.com writes:

 > There's nothing wrong with SAX (though it too needs another turn of
 > the evolutionary crank, in my opinion), but SAX is a stream rather
 > than a model. The two really aren't in competition with each other
 > any more than sed is in competition with vi -- they're each good in
 > their own target domain, and there are even times when using one to
 > generate the other is the right answer.

Wow!  I hadn't been following this thread, and had no idea that there
was a DOM vs. SAX flame war going on.  Very cool.

While I believe that some flame wars are justified -- Emacs really is
better than vi, Java really is better than C++, Linux really is better
than Windows, and my Border Collie really is better than anyone's Jack
Russell Terrier, all on objective and clearly verifiable grounds -- in
this case I agree with both of Joe's points:

1. SAX and DOM are complementary
2. SAX and DOM both need a little more work


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

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 (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe 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)