Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Nathan Kurz <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:12:40 -0600 (CST)
Mark Birbeck wrote:
> It's also relevant to document fragments. In previous posts, I was
> trying to say that as far as a parser is concerned, whether it receives
> a complete XML document by retrieving a file from a disk, a page from a
> web server, or four nodes from an object database is neither here nor
> there. As far as it is concerned, it has an 'XML document'. I called
> this a 'logical' document because I wanted to indicate that it may not
> actually exist in any physical form, but it is a
> 'data-object-that-conforms' item, and that if we can process an 'XML
> document' we can process one node, many nodes or the whole tree. You
> don't then need to devise another system to process well-formed
> 'uberdocuments', and yet another to process well-formed 'document
> fragments' or 'microdocuments' or whatever.
Although it may reflect the state of existing parsers, I disagree with
this assessment of how XML parsers must relate to 'XML documents' and
'document fragments'. It seems like it has things backwards. You
imply that if a parser is able to process a collection of nodes in one
particular form, that it is able to process a collection of nodes in
any arrangement whatsoever. Perhaps, but not necessarily.
An XML document has to have a root node. A subset of that document,
produced by an XSL engine or by some other means, doesn't necessarily
have a root node. An XML parser may or may not require that a
document has a root node. Any parser capable of handling documents
without a root will do fine if one exists, but the reverse it not
Perhaps the question is whether there is a difference between an 'XML
parser' and an 'XML document parser'. Which brings up the question of
whether there is such as thing as XML (by definition well-formed) that
is not a XML document. I think there is, and that this is where the
term 'document fragment' is useful.
Here's a simplified version of how I'd like the world to be defined: :)
A piece of well-formed XML, that may or may not have a root
element. In the parlance of the spec, it would probably
be called a 'well-formed textual object'. Doesn't even have
to contain any elements. Colloquially synonymous with 'XML'.
A document fragment that, in the words of the spec, 'when
taken as a whole matches production labeled document'. In
practice, some XML with a single root element. Parsed
entities must also be well formed.
Something that accepts XML as input and/or treats its input
as XML. May or may not care if the input is well-formed
and/or valid. It's quite possible that cat(1) would qualify
as an XML parser by this definition.
XML document parser:
An XML parser that expects an XML document as input, and
complains if it does not receive one. A 'conforming XML
processor' in the spec's terms. (Although the spec often
uses just 'XML processor' and implies 'conforming').
Which is to say, that I think the notion of 'document fragment' is
still useful, and that it is worthwhile to think about textual XML
that is not in the form of an XML document.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)