Re: [xml-dev] Implementations not specifications are the problem was Re: [xml-dev] IDs considered harmful

[Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>]

Michael Kay wrote:


> No, this wasn't a game or a joke. In the InfoSet, ID-ness is a property of
> the attribute information item, it's not a property of the attribute
> declaration, in fact the attribute declaration isn't even in the InfoSet.
> XSLT transforms a tree to a tree, and the idea is that the tree reflects the
> InfoSet as closely as we can make it. But if the result tree doesn't contain
> attribute declarations, but does contain ID-ness as a property of the
> attribute instance, then we're going to end up with a tree that can't be
> serialized to XML, whether in streaming mode or otherwise.
> 
> You can't parse an XML document to an InfoSet, make arbitrary changes to
> properties of objects in the InfoSet, and then serialize back to XML. I
> don't think that's a joke at all.


A bad joke, then! looks like a Gordian knot which each new specification 
  (W3C XML Schema, XPointer, SOAP, XML Infoset, ...) is tighting a 
little bit more in deseperate efforts to find their own escape.

The editors of XML Infoset have been wise enough to write:

"It does not attempt to be exhaustive; the primary criterion for 
inclusion of an information item or property has been that of expected 
usefulness in future specifications. Nor does it constitute a minimum 
set of information that must be returned by an XML processor."

I hope this clause might be used!

Thanks for the clarification,

Eric

> 
> Mike Kay

-- 
Rendez-vous à Paris pour le Forum XML.
                    http://www.technoforum.fr/Pages/forumXML01/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org      http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------