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

Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?

• From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
• To: ",xml-dev@x..." <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:18:53 +0800

John Cowan wrote:
> 
> Jonathan Borden wrote:
> 
> > What we need is a common language for the specification of XML subsets
> > (grove plans), from the full fidelity XML property set.
> 
> I think the idea of creating a formalism for specifying subsets of the Infoset
> is a very plausible one, and if the Infoset ever gets out the door I will
> think about the problem.

A property set is simply a kind of schema: a closed, definitional,
maximal schema. A grove plan is a transformation of the schema to
restrict it.  

Looking through the DSSSL property set last week, I was struck that it
could probably be written with XML Schema.  A grove plan could be
produced by specifying an XSLT transformation or restricting it by hand. 
 
99% of implementers do not need to be concerned about the existence of a
formalized property set/information set. Lovers of formalisms are
offended when abstractions do not come first.  But as far as most of us
need to be concerned, the information set is what DOM gives us, or XPath
can address: take the intersection set of these, and you more-or-less
will get the core infoset for W3C specificiations.

Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • RE: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: ANN: Dr. Dobb's audio interview with David Orchard on XLink
• Next by Date: Re: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - FinalReviewDraft)
• Previous by thread: Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by thread: RE: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread