Less code is definitely better, but IMHO the current parser is to thin and lightweight and as far as the experimental JXR is consider the overhead of extending the current code base it to great to justify the experimentation. Nothings set in concrete I just wanted to see what happens if I tried it. -----Original Message----- From: burtonator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 25 April 2001 18:28 Subject: Re: JXR2 >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> burtonator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Scott Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > <snip> ><snip> > >> What about use of an ANTLR parser that generates XHTML? ANTLR appears >> to use the same sort of callback mechanism that SAX employs. Having a >> pre-defined Java grammar scores heavy points, IMHO. :) ><snip> > > >Maybe. I don't see why we need Antlr when we already have a thin, lightweight, >parser. If some somewhat minor chages are made, just removing the HTML are done >we don't have to use Antlr. I just think more code == bad. > >... of course I am not writing the code so... > >Kevin > >- -- >Kevin A. Burton ( [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) > Cell: 408-910-6145 URL: http://relativity.yi.org ICQ: 73488596 > >Build a better mouse trap... and you'll be sued by someone who patented mouse >trapping devices in 1993. >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) >Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt > >iD8DBQE65vteAwM6xb2dfE0RAmRhAJ9uoCoPtBekQqtAEtaUaVvDaEZoqACgu4kZ >FDKbsS1oagpHVQne+Poi36U= >=7BTI >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
