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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

 


 

   the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: [xml-dev]linking,

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

hi.

here is my newest approach to convince people that the infoset should be 
extensible and that the extensions should be made visible through other 
technologies.

people seem to think the the infoset is just xml markup in an abstract 
way. actually, it is more, because building the infoset involves some 
non-trivial tasks, such as identifying ID and IDREF(S) and making sure 
that they are used properly.

also, the infoset could be regarded as being composed out of two layers, 
one being xml 1.0 alone, the other one adding namespaces. so let's take 
a look at this comment:

Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> A namespace declaration is not an attribute (even if DOM treats it like
> one).  When you turn on namespace processing in SAX2, prefix mappings
> are reported before the element that they appear on.  The thing that is
> lexically an attribute in the XML is not reported as an attribute in the
> start element event.

so people have already accepted the fact that some semantics (probably 
useful to them) are exposed through the infoset, in this case the 
namespaceness of an attribute. however, this also requires an additional 
layer of processing, identifying namespace declarations, testing names 
for their conformance to namespace-requirements, and making sure that 
all prefixes are used consistently. in most cases, people don't want to 
do this themselves and are happy that it is already done by their parser 
or xslt processor or whatever they are using.

and even though a namespace declaration *is* an attribute, treating it 
also as something different makes life in namespace-aware environments 
much easier. in the same way, treating an xlink-element as something 
different (an abstract link item) would make life in link-aware 
environments much easier.

my point here is that the infoset as we have it today already mixes two 
things (xml 1.0 and namespaces - actually it also supports xml base, 
which could be seen as yet another layer, but this would lead too 
far...). i think that this is ok, but seeing it this way may make it 
easier for people to accept that other semantics might also be 
interesting to certain application domains and should be exposed through 
the infoset.

cheers,

erik wilde  -  tel:+41-1-6325132  -  fax:+41-1-6321035
           mailto:net.dret@dret.net -  http://dret.net/
           computer engineering and networks laboratory
           swiss federal institute of technology  (eth)
           * try not. do, or do not. there is no try. *





 

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

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