On 17 Aug 2013, at 06:10, David Lee wrote: The Ftan paper says specifically in the FtanML data model section that a FtanML element is just its name and its attributes (the content value is an attribute named by the empty string). It's a pure, if compound, value, like a mathematical ordered pair or a complex number, and has no notion of being embedded in a specific context, hence no parent. This means that it's a no-op to make a copy of a Ftan element, just as it's a no-op to make a copy of 32+45i. ---------- Yes this is the data model to which I was referring. Of all the FtanML this was the most thought provoking to me.
This idea comes straight out of JSON of course. It's a major difference between XML and JSON that has gone almost unnoticed.
With XSLT 3.0 maps we don't have identity and we don't have parent navigation, and we did this because of a feeling that the objects would thereby be more "lightweight". But then with FtanML we wanted to unify elements and maps (an insight that came from one of the students) and it occurred to us that one could have a viable document tree without node identity and parent pointers.
Michael Kay Saxonica
|
