[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Arrgh! - FW: Call for unifying and clarifying XML 1.0, DOM, XPATH, a

  • From: "Nils Klarlund" <klarlund@r...>
  • To: "XML-Dev Mailing list" <xml-dev@i...>
  • Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 12:02:15 -0500

Re: Arrgh! - FW: Call for unifying and clarifying XML 1.0
> >1. The Infoset is not the same as the DOM. The Infoset does not imply a
> >structure. The Infoset should never imply a tree structure, as it's
> >to describe the behavior of non-node-oriented processors such as SAX.

  "This specification presents the information set as a tree for the
   sake of clarity and simplicity.."  (verbatim, from Infoset, Last

"Tree" is a widely used term among computer scientists, logicians,
mathematicians, and so forth.  The quintessence of XML is that it's a
linear syntax for labelled trees.  (Other characterizations are
possible, of course.) The tree view is the key to the superiority of
CSS and XSLT as an abstraction mechanism over text-macro based markup
languages (like TeX/Latex).

>> I believe the W3C made the right call by making attributes not
> >children of the elements with which they are associated.

Quite possibly, but other nodes deserve some nomenclature as well, not ad

> >3. The term "information item" is a necessary one because of the overuse
> >other synonyms (such as element, attribute, and so on) in the DOM
> >specifications. Information items are none of these.

Would you call page numbers "page information items"?  The information items
are nodes in a tree (with ordereded and unordered children) and should be
> >4. Nils appears to be obsessed with terminology in the XML 1.0
> >specification, which is significantly out of date at this point. The
> >drafts should be taken as the "official" W3C position - there's just not
> >anyone providing errata to the original document to keep it in line. For
> >example, the current way of thinking says that there's a Document node,
> >which must have exactly one Element child node. XML 1.0 says something
> >slightly different, but that's not important.

No, I'm concerned that DOM, XPATH, and INFOSET do not turn out to be
essentially the same model.  That would be a great shame.  Better get it
than rush.


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Unsubscribe by posting to majordom@i... the message
unsubscribe xml-dev  (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email@your-subscribed-address

Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.

Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.