r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[XML] xml related conversations

Chris
28-Oct-2005
[50]
It should work -- XML -> DOM -> XML -- with the DOM being a document 
structure and a collection of methods for manipulating itself.
Pekr
28-Oct-2005
[51]
taken from: http://www.saxproject.org/event.html
Chris
28-Oct-2005
[52]
If the internal representation is an object-base tree, what are the 
barriers to the 'get-elements-by-tag-name function?
Volker
28-Oct-2005
[53]
Yes, load is our tree, parse our events. Think of parse as "Here 
comes the word 'file. Yuppa, and a real 'file! . Good, and a 'binary!. 
(fine, now i store that data in that file)"
Chris
28-Oct-2005
[54]
http://www.zvon.org/xxl/DOM2reference/Output/index.html
Pekr
28-Oct-2005
[55]
what would you find more usefull when working with XML? DOM sounds 
good when working with loaded document, all those find-element-by-name 
etc funcs sound usefull. For streaming kind of purposes (protocols), 
SAX sounds being a better option ...
Volker
28-Oct-2005
[56]
Yes, that what i understand too.
Chris
28-Oct-2005
[57]
What are the SAX methods for manipulating an XML document, and how 
easy is it to save the changes?
Pekr
28-Oct-2005
[58]
Chris - following is true imo which favors SAX with me:


Tree-based APIs are useful for a wide range of applications, but 
they normally put a great strain on system resources, especially 
if the document is large. Furthermore, many applications need to 
build their own strongly typed data structures rather than using 
a generic tree corresponding to an XML document. It is inefficient 
to build a tree of parse nodes, only to map it onto a new data structure 
and then discard the original.
Chris
28-Oct-2005
[59]
You've lost me...
Pekr
28-Oct-2005
[60x2]
The thing is - result of DOM parsing is tree representation of document 
- in Rebol .... the question is, what if you need data organised 
otherwise? You will have to search that tree and build such structure 
which fits you anyway ....
yes, saving the changes - will have to think about it. .... it might 
be tricky, if even possible :-)
Chris
28-Oct-2005
[62]
Which is the point in my suggesting the DOM :o)
Pekr
28-Oct-2005
[63x2]
so we should have both :-)
or just kind of clever REBOL mixture :-)
Chris
28-Oct-2005
[65]
I don't think the DOM should be as complex as you suggest.
Pekr
28-Oct-2005
[66]
noone said we have to develop 1:1 solution ... let's develop one 
which fits the need best ...
Volker
28-Oct-2005
[67x2]
actually that description favors DOM. First, we dont want to save 
memory, we are scripters. We use load too.. Second, we are not strongly 
typed (they mean static typed). SO we can happily be generic.
Organizing data - if data is in blocks, you can use path-notation, 
but also runwith a parse-rule through the loaded data.
Sunanda
28-Oct-2005
[69]
Chris < it appears not to work out the box...>

I'm using Gavin's script from REBOL.org unmodified in a real project.
It works for me.

But I may be encountering a different subset of XML possibilities 
to you.
Chris
28-Oct-2005
[70]
It is a complete (as is my understanding) way to manipulate an XML 
document.  It is also a standard, familiar to anyone who has used 
Javascript.
Pekr
28-Oct-2005
[71x2]
ok, is anywhere complete and nice DOM specs? W3C org?
But we should not think that having DOM will allow us to manipulate 
website elements, as having document loaded into rebol DOM will not 
allow us to manipulate DOM tree loaded into browser :-)
Volker
28-Oct-2005
[73]
But for that parse-rule we need a fixed mapping, i think i start 
with functions first, until i know what i need. Easier to change.
Chris
28-Oct-2005
[74x2]
>> do http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/download-a-script.r?script-name=xml-parse.r
>> parse-xml+ read http://www.ross-gill.com/
** Script Error: Invalid path value: parse-xml
** Where: parse-xml+
** Near: xml-parse/parser/parse-xml code
(that looks mangled in my AltME window)
Volker
28-Oct-2005
[76]
If they are functions, we can map the same names to browser-calls. 
think protocols.
Chris
28-Oct-2005
[77x2]
Petr -- look at my links above...
Petr, that is exactly what the DOM does -- and web site elements 
*are* xml.
Volker
28-Oct-2005
[79]
Btw Chirs, thanks for the links.
Chris
28-Oct-2005
[80x2]
Wait, I'm reading your sentence incorrectly.
No worries, again this seems straightforward -- http://www.zvon.org/xxl/DOM2reference/Output/index.html
Sunanda
28-Oct-2005
[82]
Chris -- that do from REBOL.org works for me.

parse-xml is an RT mezzanine. Perhaps its not present in your rebol.exe
Chris
28-Oct-2005
[83x7]
Petr, I don't anticipate being able to manipulate a browser's DOM.
Sunanda, it appears to be a problem in the script.
>> parse-xml read http://www.ross-gill.com

== [document none [["html" ["xmlns" "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
"xml:lang" "en" "lang" "en"] ["^/" ["head" n
one [["title" none [...
>> source parse-xml+
parse-xml+: func [[{
    Parses XML code and returns a tree of blocks.
    This is a more XML 1.0 compliant parse than the built-in
    REBOL parse-xml function.
}
        code [string!] "XML code to parse"
    ]][
    xml-parse/parser/parse-xml code
]
Likely because in the code, it says -- parser: make object! [[  ... 
 parse-xml: ...]]
Similarly, the parse-xml+ arguments block is doubled too -- [[code 
[string!]]]
If I make those fixes, I get 'false' when I parse my homepage (which 
validates as xhtml)
Sunanda
28-Oct-2005
[90]
Chris -- I don't get that problem,

But you did make me look closer, and my earlier statement was wrong.
I'm using

http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/download-a-script.r?script-name=xml-object.r
Which is similar to xml-parse, but not identical.
Example of usage:
probe: first reduce xml-to-object parse-xml
     {<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
      <xxx>11</xxx>
     }
Chris
28-Oct-2005
[91]
The simplicity of xml-to-object is nice, but for extraction.  Manipulation 
beyond changing text would be tricky.
Sunanda
28-Oct-2005
[92x2]
True -- I'm only using it to load XML into a rebol structure for 
various reporting purposes. Not trying to round trip the data back 
to XMK after updating..
XMK!?  == XML
Benjamin
29-Oct-2005
[94]
i im using the scripts made by Gavin the code is great, but libs 
for dom implementation are out there and are free i dont know why 
not to use this natively  in rebol i feel like the stone age here, 
tell me if im wrong but i feel like a cave man doing my parsing like 
this. if the code is free and the implementation is easy why not 
to have this in rebol ? just because we can exeed 650k ?
Graham
29-Oct-2005
[95]
because it was not invented here :(
Sunanda
29-Oct-2005
[96]
I think it's fair to say that Carl is not fond on XML:
http://www.rebol.net/article/0110.html
http://www.rebol.net/article/0108.html

(And, to be precise, neither am I....But there is a lot of it out 
there, and REBOL needs to work with it better)
Chris
29-Oct-2005
[97]
I still believe it can the DOM be implemented succinctly in Rebol, 
in a way that not only makes it easy for Rebollers to manipulate 
XML content, but makes Rebol a desireable tool to work with XML, 
period.
Benjamin
30-Oct-2005
[98]
XML is not a silver bullet rebol block are much powerfull than XML, 
thats if you'r dealing REBOL's only deployment, but when ic comes 
to manage interoperability things get a bit messy and confused.
Pekr
30-Oct-2005
[99]
I am with Chris here. XML may not be silver bullet, but you can do 
nothing if the other party decides to use and communicate using XML 
- you either can handle, or you can't - simple as that. You can argue 
with them about rebol and its blocks, they will not care :-)