xml-dev Digest V1 #242

[Oren Ben-Kiki]

keshlam at us.ibm.com wrote:

>Oren said:
>>IMVHO SAX should be defined not as a "parser interface" but as a "DOM tree
>>visitor interface".
>
>Mild disagreement, related to where DOM is positioned. The Document Object
>Model, despite its name, is not intended to be the Official Inner Semantics
>of XML. (That's the Infoset WG's problem.) DOM is just an API for accessing
>a document, which happens to be organized in a way that closely resembles a
>parse tree.


? It isn't clear to me what the difference between "inner semantics" and
"accessing" is, but I'm willing to learn :-) I guess it is time to read some
more W3 specs...

>If you want to say that both DOM and SAX should be considered as visitors
>to the parse tree, I'll buy it. And certainly parsers _can_ output a parse
>tree whose structure mirrors the DOM.


Mild disagreement :-) DOM is a random access API, not a visitor pattern API.
But I'm perfectly satisfied accepting both as being wrappers for some other
"inner semantics" representation - which I suspect is what happens in most
implementations anyway.

Share & Enjoy,

    Oren Ben-Kiki


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)