[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Why XML Schema enforces UPA (was Re: a or b or both - mystery ..)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Murali Mani <mani@CS.UCLA.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:23:57 -0500
I'm circling back to the concepts Henry talks about
in his presentations discussed a while back, that
we are *always* processing infoSet values. Where we may
differ is that if that is so, then the infoSet is
not defined by the schema. The schema may add
information to the infoSet by adding values,
and so may other applications (all of these
schemas so far with the exception of DTDs
are schemas). The infoSet definition itself
is immutable, or closed with respect to the
extent of the process. It can only be changed
by the outer process; that of human specification.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@CS.UCLA.EDU]
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> I think Henry is right similar to the way the Grove guys
> were right.
Where is Henry right?
I say that we almost always end up with non-deterministic content models
during document processing.
I also say that unique particle attribution as in XML Schema is *very*
exaggerated, if we need UPA (i doubt if we need it), we need UPA as
provided by unambiguous regular tree grammars.
regards - murali.