From: Jim Menard <jimm@...>
Date: 2001-03-09T11:40:02+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:12309] Re: [ANN] NQXML v0.2.2

jweirich@one.net writes:

> I always figured a SAX parser was one that followed the SAX API spec.
> Since SAX is written assuming a Java implementation, deciding what is
> SAX compliant in a different language is open to some interpretation.
> The NQXML parser is definitely event based, but is different enough
> from the style of the original Java SAX that I would hesitate to apply
> the SAX label to it.

Maybe I should stop calling it a SAX parser.

> But then, being SAX compliant is only important if you want to be able
> to switch between two or more SAX implementations.  There is nothing
> wrong with NQXML being a non-SAX event driven parser.  In fact, I
> don't believe its possible to build a DOM parser on top of a pure SAX
> parser (e.g. SAX doesn't deliver comments, so it is impossible to
> include comment nodes in a DOM document built with a pure SAX parser).

Oops. My pseudo-SAX parser delivers comments. I obviously haven't read the
SAX spec. I should definitely stop calling it a SAX parser. (Now to come up
with a clever name...)

> If SAX compatibility is important, it should be easy to add a SAX
> adapter to NQXML in the future.

Perhaps someone else will build one on top of the NQXML::Tokenizer.

BTW, the example scripts I'm coming up with (using both the DOM and
mis-named SAX parsers) really show off Ruby. I will be uploading them and
posting them to the NQXML Web site in a day or two.

Jim
-- 
Jim Menard, jimm@io.com, http://www.io.com/~jimm/
"Rumor has it the internet is out of money. Pack your stuff and go home."
   -- "Pud", www.f***edcompany.com