Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Sean McGrath <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>,"Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:44:03 +0100
[At 20:56 31/07/00 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:]
>Suppose this: we define a 100% complete abstract model of an XML 1.0, and
>XML Namespace compliant document, and also define a mechanism for defining
>subsets of such an abstract model. Sort of the opposite of base class
>inheritance where sub classes gain properties, we define a pruning mechanism
>to eliminate certain properties from subsets of the base information set. In
>this scenario, the current XML Information Set would be derived from the
>full fidelity Base XML Information Set.
Count me in.
This is the sort of "partical physics" I think we need
beneath XML 1.
Otherwise we are forever doomed to pulling out hair out as
XML editors/databases etc. etc. make infuriating tranformations
behind our backs in syntactic areas they consider "insignificant".
XFM only scratches the surface of this and I would love to
see it teased out and formalized.
It would be great if prunes of MOAI (Mother of All Infosets)
could be allocated names. Then I can walk up to a vendor
and say "does your tool read/write XXXX infoset?".
http://www.pyxie.org - an Open Source XML Processing library for Python