Re: which HTML parser is better?

sergiu gordea Wed, 02 Feb 2005 10:23:15 -0800

Karl Koch wrote:

I am in control of the html, which means it is well formated HTML. I use
only HTML files which I have transformed from XML. No external HTML (e.g.
the web).

Are there any very-short solutions for that?

if you are using only correct formated HTML pages and you are in control of these pages. you can use a regular exprestion to remove the tags.

something like
replaceAll("<*>","");

This is the ideea behind the operation. If you will search on google you will find a more robust regular expression.

Using a simple regular expression will be a very cheap solution, that can cause you a lot of problems in the future.

It's up to you to use it ....

Best,

Sergiu

Karl
Karl Koch wrote:
Hi,
yes, but the library your are using is quite big. I was thinking that a
5kB
code could actually do that. That sourceforge project is doing much more
than that but I do not need it.
you need just the htmlparser.jar 200k.
... you know ... the functionality is strongly correclated with the size.
You can use 3 lines of code with a good regular expresion to eliminate the html tags, but this won't give you any guarantie that the text from the bad fromated html files will be correctly extracted...
 Best,
 Sergiu
Karl
Hi Karl,
I already submitted a peace of code that removes the html tags.
Search for my previous answer in this thread.
Best,
 Sergiu
Karl Koch wrote:
Hello,
I have been following this thread and have another question.

Is there a piece of sourcecode (which is preferably very short and
simple

(KISS)) which allows to remove all HTML tags from HTML content? HTML

3.2

would be enough...also no frames, CSS, etc.

I do not need to have the HTML strucutre tree or any other structure

but
need a facility to clean up HTML into its normal underlying content

before
indexing that content as a whole.
Karl
I think that depends on what you want to do. The Lucene demo parser
does

simple mapping of HTML files into Lucene Documents; it does not give
you

a

parse tree for the HTML doc. CyberNeko is an extension of Xerces

(uses
the
same API; will likely become part of Xerces), and so maps an HTML
document

into a full DOM that you can manipulate easily for a wide range of purposes. I haven't used JTidy at an API level and so don't know it
as
well --
based on its UI, it appears to be focused primarily on HTML validation
and
error detection/correction.
I use CyberNeko for a range of operations on HTML documents that go
beyond

indexing them in Lucene, and really like it. It has been robust for
me
so
far.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Jingkang Zhang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 1:15 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: which HTML parser is better?
Three HTML parsers(Lucene web application
demo,CyberNeko HTML Parser,JTidy) are mentioned in
Lucene FAQ
1.3.27.Which is the best?Can it filter tags that are
auto-created by MS-word 'Save As HTML files' function?
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
150����MP3����ѣ������������ֵ���
http://music.yisou.com/
��Ů����Ӧ�о��У��ѱ���ͼ����ͼ�Ϳ�ͼ
http://image.yisou.com
1G����1000�ף��Ż������������ݣ�
http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/1g/*http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/event/ma
il_1g/
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: which HTML parser is better?

Reply via email to