Lists Home |
Date Index |
Jeni Tennison wrote:
>>>I'm just trying to persuade Patrick not to use a syntax that's
>>>similar-enough-to-XML-to-be-confusing as the input to his processes
>>>in the examples that he uses.
>>In my defense, I am trying to persuade Jeni to not see a data model
>>as a limitation on a particular serialization syntax.
>I don't think that I do. I'm quite happy for XML to be interpreted as
>the Infoset, as the PSVI, as the XPath data model, as the DOM data
>model, as the LMNL data model, indeed as any data model anyone wants
>to use with it! XML is a syntax, that's all.
Sorry, that is simply not correct.
Underlying XML is a data model. That data model is set forth at:
It is not happenstance that all of the "data models" that you cite,
PSVI, XPath, DOM, are based on the presumption of a tree. The tree model
underlies all those "data models" and its presence was not a matter of
chance (or choice). (LMNL does not use that model but then it is not a
XML data model. It is a data model that can model documents based on the
XML data model.)
>>As I said, yesterday and I suppose it bears repeating, JITTs can use
>>standard, valid, well-formed XML documents and syntax for many
>>things. It can also use XML syntax that violates the XML data model
>>but I fail to see why that is confusing?
>I'm not sure what you mean by "XML syntax that violates the XML data
>model". There is no *the* XML data model -- XML is just a syntax. But
>there are very clear rules about that syntax -- the well-formedness
>rules. My point is that if a document breaks those well-formedness
>rules then it isn't in XML syntax. It's confusing to label documents
>that aren't well-formed XML as "using XML syntax".
I think we need to reach some agreement on the question of the "data
model" of XML. I think the URL I cite above makes my answer to that
question fairly clear. Do you have another interpretation of what is
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature