IBM's isn't released anywhere yet (I don't know of anybody who has seen it yet, but that group has indicated an interest in contributing it to xml.apache.org).
Sun's might be part of the stuff they just released on their website. (Can somebody check?) The OpenXML one is the same as the one being contributed from ExOffice. I'm surprised that it is unforgiving, because I know it's been used for a lot of web spiders out there, and it would have to be pretty forgiving to work for that application! Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Can anyone send us links to the Sun and IBM versions please? Are these > Java or C++ implementations? I'm using the java Tidy html parser because > the OpenXML one is way too unforgiving of unwellformed HTML. But I'd > prefer to use something else (also java) because Tidy's not built for > speed. > > Thanks in advance, > > --Susan > > > Mike Pogue > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > e.org> cc: > Subject: Re: HTML parsing > 03/13/00 > 11:41 AM > Please > respond to > xerces-dev > > > > Note that we have a couple of people who would like to donate an > HTML parser to xml.apache.org, to be added to Xerces. The ones I know of > are: > > ExOffice (extremely well tested, used for web spiders), > Sun (I haven't seen it yet), and > IBM (I haven't seen it yet either). > > I suspect that if people are interested in this, we ought to have people > look at all three, > and figure out whether one is better, or whether they should be merged > somehow before > being checked in...assuming there's interest in this! > > Any volunteers? > > Mike > > Cox Andy wrote: > > > > If the HTML is not well-formed XML (which most is not), you are correct. > > > > Andy > > > > | -----Original Message----- > > | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > | Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 10:32 AM > > | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > | Subject: HTML parsing > > | > > | > > | For what I can tell, I cannot expect to be able to parse an HTML doc > with > > | the xerces parser? I was hoping to use the C++ SAX parser to find > <IMG> > > | tags but I don't think I will be able to do that. Can someone confirm > > this > > | dreadful fact?
