Victor Mote wrote:
I think we should separate fo tree itself from the process of its building. fo tree structure is required and I agree with Keiron - it's not a DOM, it's just tree representation and I cherish the idea to make it an effectively small structure like saxon's internal tree. But any interim buffers should be avoided as much as it's possible (well, Piter's buffer seems not to be a burden).The issue with SAX as I see it, is that because it is one-way, and our processing is not (I think the standard calls it "non-linear"), we presumably have to essentially build our own DOM-ish (random access) things in order to get the job done.
Bad idea, I believe. DOM is heaviweight versatile representation of xml document (recall entities, pi's etc nodes), while we need effective and lightweight structure to hold fo/area tree information. DOM has a lot of synchronization stuff, while our trees are almost read-only actually.To conclude, if I were designing this system from scratch, based on what I know right now, I would: 1. Use DOM for both the fo tree & the area tree.
Ahh stop, probably you didn't mean w3c DOM?
--
Oleg Tkachenko
eXperanto team
Multiconn Technologies, Israel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
