Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:47:20 -0400
Jonathan Borden wrote:
> What we mean by "high fidelity" is simply this: the *parsed* model, what is
> also called a grove, has the capability of saving the document *exactly*,
> character for character, from what it was parsed.
Okay, this is the one that cares about the 74 occurrences of S, which Simon
insists on calling a red herring?
> But it is not hard to describe, that is my point. The XML 1.0 production
> rules create a parse tree which exactly describes the source document, down
> to the byte. This is what I would call the XML property set, and from this
> one can subset to one's desire.
Okay, I understand now. Actually the production-rule level is *not* the
bottom parsing level, because for the most part PE-references have already
been removed. Internal PEs are not really structural in XML;
it is a mere validity constraint that requires DTD constructs to begin
and end in the same PE, and
<!ENTITY % element "<!ELEMENT">
%element; FOO EMPTY>
is a well-formed though not valid external subset.
> Doesn't it make the most sense to subset from the full description, rather
> than both add to and subtract from a partial description?
IMHO no. The correct level to aim at, when doing the job for the first
time for the benefit of the SGML-naive, is the middle useful level, what
you call "structure sensitive". The question then remains, just what is
useful structure and what is not? I have done my best to answer that
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)