Lists Home |
Date Index |
Jeni Tennison wrote:
> > Yes, direct PSVI access would be one possible application of an
> > annotation axis or function (as Jeni suggested with
> > foo/#psvi:type-definition in an earlier post), but I see no point in
> > limiting it to PSVI and PSVI only access as your reflect function
> > suggests.
> I don't think that Henry was suggesting limiting it to PSVI -- he was
> just using examples from the PSVI (actually, they're from the basic
> Infoset, I think) because it saves him from making up anything.
> I think that the basic point he makes -- that whenever someone adds
> something new to the Infoset they should also provide a standard XML
> representation of that -- is a very good one that would really support
> the idea of accessing annotations as a node set using an axis or
> function. Very cool.
Ehr, you're right, sorry, I was jumping to false conlusions, I think
I was distracted by this four letter acronym in the middle of the message ...
However, I think that no information other than the core infoset should be
accessible without qualified names.