Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:31:33 -0700 in <mailman.987481709.29843.python-list at python.org>, Paul Prescod <paulp at ActiveState.com> spake: >Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote: >> XML-based scripting languages have yet another vulnerable point, >> though - you have to read the entire document to parse it unless you use >> a SAX-like parser, but the document could be arbitrarily large. >So you're saying that "XML-based scripting languages require you to read >in the whole document unless you use an intelligent implementation in >which case they don't." 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? -- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a> "I will tell you things that will make you laugh and uncomfortable and really fucking angry and that no one else is telling you. What I won't do is bullshit you. I'm here for the same thing you are. The Truth." -Transmetropolitan #39
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