[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>The PSVI is not as defined a document in the sense I think you mean it
>(an encoded character sequence satisfying at least the well-formedness
>requirements of XML 1.0 plus Namespaces). Neither is the (vanilla)
>Infoset.
Yeah, probably I was not communicating well, this is probably because I
tend to think of an Infoset, unless it is a virtual Infoset, as an
instance of XML that matches the possible ways I want to interact with
it. And if it is a virtual Infoset I still think of it that way, even
though I don't have an actual document I can point to as an example of
the Infoset(this is just cause it helps me think of it this way, I feel
comfortable dealing with tangible instances); also thinking along the
lines of your paper "A Standards-Based Framework for Comparing XML
Schema Implementations" in which you talked about saving the PSVI into a
document that could describe it. Eric just posted something about
wondering why we can't do that. This is what I was talking about when I
said I would know to keep track of it, cause it's probably the way I
would keep track of the information, whether or not my framework gave me
some other methods of doing so.
Perhaps I should go back and read that again, as I think much of it went
over my head.
>Given all that the short answer to your question is: if you're an
>application and some library or sub-part gives you a handle on
>something which purports to be a conformant Infoset of some kind, if
>you find a [validation root] property on the Element Information Item
>which is the sole child of the Document Information Item therein, you
>know that it's a PSVI -- if you don't, it _probably_ isn't. (It's
>possible that only a sub-tree of your document got
>schema-validity-assessed, but if that's possible you'll probably know
>about it, and know to look through the document for the validation
>root).
>More than you wanted, I suspect :-)
no, had to read through it twice though :)
|
