SML: The size of the processor is not the issue

[Sean Mc Grath]

>Sean Mc Grath <digitome at iol.ie> writes:
>
>> It is in this space, transforming XML to XML, that the cost
>> of all XML 1.0 features are paid. Take the most trivial XML
>> to XML transformation -- the null transformation. Think about
>> how hard it is do this for arbirtary XML 1.0 documents.
>
[David Megginson]
>That's simply a problem of underspecification: XML 1.0 provides a
>syntax, but for the most part, it doesn't say what in that in that
>syntax is signal (such as character data) and what is noise (such as
>whitespace in a start tag).
>
>APIs defacto make the signal/noise distinction for you.

On whose authority? I agree they make the distinction, I was
not aware that there was a global consensus on where that
distinction lies.

Are you saying that a SAX based
XML to XML transformation will generate an XML document
that looses nothing that anyone cares about in the
original?

Everyone is happy to have the parsed entities expanded inline.
Everybody is happy to loose their internal document type declaration
subsets.
Everybody is happy to have #IMPLIED attributes inlined.
etc. etc.

regards,



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)