[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:01:33 -0400
At 12:44 PM +0100 8/1/00, Sean McGrath wrote:
>[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.
>
But there is a particle physics beneath the InfoSet that applications
can use if they like. It's called the stream. The particles are
bytes. That may seem a little too fundamental to you, and you may
want something a little higher level. OK. But all we're doing here is
arguing about which layers of abstraction are useful.
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| The XML Bible (IDG Books, 1999) |
| http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/books/bible/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764532367/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
