OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] canonicalization

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Hi Tim,

Tim said:
> That's precisely what I'm disagreeing with... I'm becoming
> more & more convinced that inclusion and aggregation have so
> much application-specific hair, and the cost of trying to
> model them generally is so high, that we should just kick
> them out of the syntax and at the level of *interoperability*,
> we should talk in terms of whole fully composed XML documents.

Didier replies:
I agree with you Tim, the more I think about aggregation the more I find
that to include all aggregation rules in a single spec would lead to a book
bigger than "war and Peace" from Tolstoy :-).

For instance, we have aggregation rules based on template matching: XSLT
aggregation rules based on device/context profile: esi (ref:
aggregation/synchronization rules based on priority and content (ref:

and many more aggregation mechanisms invented by members of this list...
So, yes I agree with you, aggregation has too many heads to be confined in a
single hat. However I should say that XSLT taken as an intepreter could be
used to implement several aggregation rule mechanisms.

Didier PH Martin.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS