[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Bullard, Claude L (Len)]
> And it leads back to the question: can a PSVI or TAI/ATI
> be reduced to a transform? Reading the www-tag discussions,
> it seems that XML may become even more complicated and
> less flexible. Type augmentation seems to be an application
> concern, not an XML Infoset concern. The only way I know to
> keep those distinct is to regard augmentation as transformation.
>
For a given xml document, there are many schemas that could fit it. Among
many possible choices with xml schema, you can choose to use global elements
vs complex types, just as one example.
Therefore, there is no complex type that uniquely characterizes an element.
Perhaps the same is true of simple types (except for basic strings), since
you can always find other patterns or restrictions that would produce the
same result.
If this is the case, then it seems to me that type information, and
especially complex type information, cannot be said to be a property of the
document or element in itself. Instead, it is a joint matter between the
document and the schema. If such type information is forced into the
document representation, it could greatly reduce the inherent flexibility
of an xml document to be processed different ways for different purposes.
It seems to be, then, that type decoration should remain separate from basic
infoset information, which should characterize or model the document based
on its inherent construction.
This is another reason - add it to the others - to strive to keep PSVI
separate from the basic infoset of a document.
Comments, suggestions?
Cheers,
Tom P
|
