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] SLAIX (was: Can XLink be fixed)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Manos Batsis scripsit:

> However, this would seem a lot more logical if some other form of syntax =
> was used; it is redundant because it's XML in the first place.

Correct.  The main advantage of the XML syntax is that it already has a
mechanism for binding QNames for elements and properties: with an ad hoc
syntax, I'd have to reinvent that.

> My question is, you said this is a serialization for all infosets, not =
> just the infoset. So, suppose I begin to erase the explicit =
> serialization towards the original document, where should I stop to have =
> enough information for any infoset and not just the infoset? In other =
> words, what is that piece in the design that makes this serialization =
> suitable for any infoset?

Because infosets, at least the ones we have seen so far, consist of
information items which have properties, and a property is either a
simple type (boolean, integer, string, enum) or it's an unordered set
of information items, or an ordered list of information items.  In
short, it is a graph, and Layman normal form is one way to represent
graphs as XML.

-- 
John Cowan                                <jcowan@reutershealth.com>     
http://www.reutershealth.com              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Yakka foob mog.  Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork.  Chumble spuzz.
    -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"




 

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

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