Peter B. West wrote:
So I exaggerated. But how many better applications can you find me for
StAX than processing XSL-FO? If StAX has no application here, it has no
application. Is that what you're saying?
You're asking the question backwards. We should not be asking, "Is
XSL-FO the best possible use case for StAX?" We should be asking, "Is
StAX the best possible API for XSL-FO?"
One certainly good do write FOP on top StAX, but you can also do it with
SAX; and since it's already working with SAX I see no particular reason
to throw away the working SAX code and replace it with StAX. If we were
starting from scratch, and if the developers were more familiar with
StAX than SAX, and if StAX parsers were as mature, proven, and
ubiquitous as SAX parsers, then writing FOP on top of StAX might be
reasonable. However none of that's the case.
Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!