shilling for my feature request [1926]

Troy Rollins troy at
Fri Jul 30 23:09:10 CDT 2004

On Jul 30, 2004, at 11:48 PM, Mark Brownell wrote:

> So...
> These new split functions would allow us to set our own rules for 
> next(), nextTag(), and nextText() while streaming fragments out of of 
> full XML documents. This is because we would have high speed functions 
> to pull data out of large documents and the need for not relying on 
> the streaming method would leave those current pull-parser 
> implementations further behind.
> MTML breaks the rules in a way that XML was never meant to. MTML 
> element type tag sets can begin within an other tag set and end 
> outside these other tag sets. This would break most XML parsers and 
> even some of the new streaming designs that are designed as 
> implementations of pull-parsing. All this adds up to the designer of 
> the data structure being able to run modified and simple data 
> transfers. "This is a good thing" Martha Stewart. It's better to dust 
> off your competitors if you can offer the option. Development time 
> within RunRev including this kind of data structuring can be a winning 
> combination for you when it comes to offering services.

Very interesting. You certainly are quite the evangelist for the merits 
of pull-parsing. I read the reference docs, but I have to admit, I'm 
not the parsing method connoisseur I suppose I should be. I've always 
used the "whatever works" approach. To that end, I've used both DOM and 
SAX, and rolled-my-own in other instances. I'm still not positive I'd 
know when to say "this needs a pull-parser!" Nor can I claim to fully 
understand all the benefits and efficiencies of MTML, fortunately, I 
doubt I am alone in that.  ;-)
RPSystems, Ltd.

More information about the use-livecode mailing list