On Jul 30, 2004, at 11:48 PM, Mark Brownell wrote:
So...
These new split functions would allow us to set our own rules for next(), nextTag(), and nextText() while streaming fragments out of of full XML documents. This is because we would have high speed functions to pull data out of large documents and the need for not relying on the streaming method would leave those current pull-parser implementations further behind.
MTML breaks the rules in a way that XML was never meant to. MTML element type tag sets can begin within an other tag set and end outside these other tag sets. This would break most XML parsers and even some of the new streaming designs that are designed as implementations of pull-parsing. All this adds up to the designer of the data structure being able to run modified and simple data transfers. "This is a good thing" Martha Stewart. It's better to dust off your competitors if you can offer the option. Development time within RunRev including this kind of data structuring can be a winning combination for you when it comes to offering services.
Very interesting. You certainly are quite the evangelist for the merits of pull-parsing. I read the reference docs, but I have to admit, I'm not the parsing method connoisseur I suppose I should be. I've always used the "whatever works" approach. To that end, I've used both DOM and SAX, and rolled-my-own in other instances. I'm still not positive I'd know when to say "this needs a pull-parser!" Nor can I claim to fully understand all the benefits and efficiencies of MTML, fortunately, I doubt I am alone in that. ;-)
--
Troy
RPSystems, Ltd.
http://www.rpsystems.net
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
