Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote: > Not even remotely. SAX-like parsers make for really fast > benchmarks, > but they're totally useless for most real-world applications; even > pull-based variants instead of the standard push-based ones > suck. What > you *NEED* 255 times out of 256 is a DOM-like document tree. And yet > that forces your parser to have an optional cutoff point, > which none of > the standard implementations have. My own fast, minimalist, DOM-like > parser does that, but only after a bitter lesson from cruel reality. > > Who lied to you and told you SAX was a good idea? Are we talking about a DOM-like document tree being required for XML-based languages? If so, XSLT is not an example where one is needed. The Xalan XSLT implementation uses SAX to parse it's stylesheets. What other XML-based language implementations have tried and failed to use SAX?
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4