Cart
ASP Error: 70
Description: Permission denied
Source: Microsoft VBScript runtime error
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why the Infoset?
 "W. E. Perry" wrote: > > "Paul W. Abrahams" wrote: > > Looking at it another way, how would the XML world be poorer if the Infoset did > > not exist? > > It is far worse than that, I fear. The Infoset is the cuckoo's egg in the XML nest. > The fundamental innovation of XML 1.0 was the concept of well-formedness, which as > a radical insight amounts to this: the instance text--that is, content plus > markup--is entirely self-sufficient both as syntax and as the basis for derived or > elaborated semantics. I disagree. The basis of SGML'86 was that the rooted, directed, cyclic graph with attribute-value tree framework that allowed a handful of general distinctions on the edges (child, parent, next, attribute, IDREF, etc) and a handful of general types on the named nodes (element, comment, PI, etc) was, when coupled with a simultaneous rooted graph of entities with a handful of general types (NDATA, sgml), was sufficient for an enormous number of complex problems. On top of this information model, the need to cope with an enormous number of possible notations and syntaxes. XML's WF-only is not "entirely" self-sufficient for anything to do with graphs. (The problem is only fixed by hard-coding, i.e. XLink, and hardcoding requires universal names, i.e. Namespaces using some public-identifer-like registration system, i.e. URIs) What XML did was to say that a lot of users only need simple AV-trees, so lets allow them to have them with little fuss. And it said that people could agree on a syntax. > Since no DTD nor other content > model or pre-ordained schema is required for the parsing, and therefore the > interpretation, of the resulting instance document, it is not necessary to secure > anyone's agreement to the extension of the content model before simply extending > the markup vocabulary of the instance document. I think this is too hard on schemas: what a schema does, in part, is specify which additional constraints the document has more than WF XML. These constraints allow more optimal handling of data: if I know that my content model is (a,b,c)+ and that it is closed, then I can allocate a list with three slots for them and I know that the XPath a[position()=1] on the parent will always succeed. If I know that an element is a date, I can store it in a database as a date not a string. If I know that a value or combinations of value is unique, I can use them as keys for faster access to data. The idea of a syntax with no schema/DTD is hardly new: in part, it was the infelicities of these that caused SGML'86 to take such a strong and radical view: if anyone can put any element anywhere, how can a consumer contractually require an information producer to produce certain information? LISP or ADA or any of the languages with position-independent and nameable parameters provides the same basic capabilities as XML WF: why are they not good markup languages? It is the ability to constrain data by schemas that is the key. If data were all atomic, and each datum was described by a universal name, and no two documents were similar, then I think William's view would be pretty close to the mark: documents could be ad hoc assemblages of elements used by applications which handled each document as best it could, perhaps with the aid of private schemas to check that all the information required was present. But truth is not atomic: a number may be complex, a quantity will have a unit as well as a value, a table has rows, love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. The other problem with William's view is the idea that documents don't exist in fairly similar runs: document types. A schema is a way for the generator of the document to communicate to the consumer of the document to tell them the rules they have used. A good schema language can allow the consumer of the document to know such things as * "If I delete element X here, should I expect all other systems who are in the loop to still process the document correctly?" * "If I add element Y here, will that break other people's systems?" * "Do I really need to check that condition Z holds at this point, or can I trust the generic contract-checking system?" Rick Jelliffe 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
