david-b at pacbell.net
Tue Oct 19 22:43:55 BST 1999
David Megginson wrote:
> David Brownell writes:
> > Did anyone mention size? Size should be an issue too. All other
> > things being equal, smaller means fewer lines for bugs to nest in.
> Agreed. It also means faster download time (in an applet), less space
> (in a palmtop), etc. Many existing Java-based parsers could be made
> *much* smaller by spinning off non-core functionality into separate
> packages layered on top.
Validation's a good choice there. Any other particular favorites?
Turns out that with SAX2, I think that all the information needed to
validate is layered ... you get all the declarations (minus some holes
in enumerated values, and you need to get one declaration from the
LexicalHandler) with all the data, so this should be easily doable.
In a discussion elsewhere this morning, someone else raised the notion
of having a XML processing pipeline component that takes SAX(2) events
and uses them to validate data "on the fly". Hey, I like this -- folk
are starting to get the right perspective on this stuff.
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;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev