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

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

• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:16:26 -0500

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> 
> From: Kevin Williams <Kevin.Williams@u...>
> 
> >Here are the issues I have with Nils' comments:
> >
> >1. The Infoset is not the same as the DOM. The Infoset does not imply a tree
> >structure. The Infoset should never imply a tree structure, as it's intended
> >to describe the behavior of non-node-oriented processors such as SAX.

The infoset implies a tree structure because XML implies a tree
structure:

"""Exactly one of the element information items corresponds to the 
document element (the root of the element tree), and all other 
element information items are contained within the document element, 
either directly or indirectly."""

What the infoset does NOT DO is require implementations to directly
expose that tree structure. The DOM is a particular API which should be
based on the information set. It happens to be tree strucuted so it
directly exposes the tree 

> >4. Nils appears to be obsessed with terminology in the XML 1.0
> >specification, which is significantly out of date at this point. 

Egad. Heaven help us when the DOM and XPath start telling us what to
read into XML 1.0! It is, after all, much more widely implemented and
documented and is not, in my personal opinion "out of date" at all.

> > 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.

What does XML say that is different?

> >While I agree that the W3C specifications can go a little heavy on the
> >jargon, I think that the way the specifications are constructed is necessary
> >and correct. The last thing we need is to see all of these different specs
> >munged together into one "unified" specification that limits the available
> >functionality of XML as it exists today. 

So you are arguing against logical and terminlogical consistency??

> > Perhaps Nils would be happier with
> >SML, with no pesky attributes to worry about...

It wouldn't help...there are lots of other problems. The handling of
text in the DOM and XPath is a particular nightmare.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself
The new revolutionaries believe the time has come for an aggressive 
move against our oppressors. We have established a solid beachhead 
on Friday. We now intend to fight vigorously for 'casual Thursdays.'
  -- who says America's revolutionary spirit is dead?

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.

• References:
  • FW: Arrgh! - FW: Call for unifying and clarifying XML 1.0, DOM, XPATH, and XML Infoset
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Further work on Xlink
• Next by Date: New version of the Table of contents document
• Previous by thread: Re: Arrgh! - FW: Call for unifying and clarifying XML 1.0, DOM, XPATH, and XML Infoset
• Next by thread: RE: Arrgh! - FW: Call for unifying and clarifying XML 1.0, DOM, XPATH, and XML Infoset
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread