On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:28:30 -0800 Dean Roddey wrote: > I don't think you'd find it worth the effort. The core parser bits are > very heavily tied directly to the XML format. There is no reason for it > to do otherwise really, since it's an XML parser. You could obviously > slip your own parsing system underneath a SAX or DOM API, since they are
Exactly! I'd like to provide my own parsing system but I don't want to re-implement SAX and DOM as far as possible. I presume that these implementations would be calling some methods of the classes that deal with the syntax. Can you list these classes that deal with the syntax at the highest level? > pretty well separated (and as long as it's just the syntax and not the > substance that is different, i.e. you still spit out XML infoset data > just parsed from a different format), but the parsing parts probably The infoset data is the same, indeed. > would be more trouble to try to rework than it's worth, depending on how > different your alternate encodings are. The only common thing between the alternate encoding and XML is CDATA :-) -- Tahir Hashmi (VSE, NCST) http://staff.ncst.ernet.in/tahir tahir AT ncst DOT ernet DOT in We, the rest of humanity, wish GNU luck and Godspeed --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
