[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Walter,
>> 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.
>
> I am sorry if this sounds tendentious, but what is a 'standard XML
> representation'? Is it a particular vocabulary, i.e., an application
> of XML? Could you give an example of what you are proposing?
A particular vocabulary -- an application of XML. See:
http://www.w3.org/2001/05/serialized-infoset-schema.html
for the schemas for such vocabularies.
> IMHO if we are talking here of XML, a syntactic framework, or even
> of best practices for the use of XML, we must be careful in our
> prescriptions neither to constrain the extensibility through markup
> which is the essential nature of XML, nor to substitute a collection
> of vocabularies, however extensive, for the general applicability of
> XML syntax.
Can you run that by me again? Are you saying that it's better to
change the syntax of XML in order to allow annotation (e.g. by
allowing attributes to contain structured values) rather than
annotating an *Infoset* and then revealing those annotations by a
processing convention?
(If you are, I think that I agree in a way, but I think there would be
a lot of resistance to changes in XML syntax.)
Cheers,
Jeni
---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
|
