Re: question for the xml-experts

[luigi scarso <luigi.scarso@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Thomas A. Schmitz
<thomas.schmitz@uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> Luigi and Khaled,
>
> thanks a lot for your replies! Luigi: I had a look at python lxml; it looks
> very powerful and interesting, and I will try and see if can make use of it.
> Why do you translate your xml sources into tex instead of using the mkiv
> mechanism for processing xml, is it because of speed?
(sorry x my laziness)
If I have a good xml , then mkiv is a good choice. As far I know, mkiv
~ xslt by lpeg, so
"traditional"
xml--( xslt )-->tex--( mkiv )-->pdf
is  like
xml-->( mkiv )-->pdf
Note that in the last chain one mixes xml+tex: if xml become complex,
this can end in a messy situation.




But some  documents  need heavy preprocessing:
for example, I have one that come from  java classes serialization,
and I need the power of python (lxml) to do a clean work .
Also, if xml changes , I 've found that lxml is more flexible than xslt.
In this case I have
xml--( lxml )-->tex--( mkiv )-->pdf

The fact is that python and lua are not so differents,
so I've to manage two languages
(python+lua) and tex;
with 'traditional' workflow you have to manage 3 languages
xslt,lua and tex
and subdivide responsability is not so easy as the former .

BTW, I have no test that say "this one is quickly than that one" .

-- 
luigi
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________