Re: XSet, an XML Property Set, was: re: Why the Infoset?
John Cowan wrote: > Jonathan Borden wrote: > > > [The Infoset is s]ufficient > > for what? Sufficient for the in-scope task of the XML Infoset WG. > > Not sufficient as a 'full fidelity' abstract description a.k.a. XML Property > > Set. > > Just to give an idea of how big a job a "full fidelity" property set is, > consider the production S of the XML Recommendation, which matches one or more > whitespace characters (space, tab, CR, LF). There are, by my eyeball > count, 74 instances of S in the production rules. In order to make the > Infoset suitable for generating an exact replica of the original, *at least* > 74 new information item properties would be required for the representation > of whitespace alone! I think that part of the problem may be that such a task would be difficult using the ISO Property Set specification. Isn't one of the benefits of XML that it is simple to write parsers, the old cut out 10% of the features to reduce the parser complexity by 90%? One of the ways I judge the appropriate language for a particular task is by how difficult it is to write programs. Perhaps you have struck the core difficulty with "Property Sets" and "Groves", that they *aren't* an easy way to specify something. Imagine the trouble with more complex syntax, or binary files. Indeed if this task is too difficult to do for the XML Infoset WG, how can we expect mere mortals to adopt Property Sets? How difficult was it to develop the RDFS model of the Infoset? Would this be an easier task to extend to cover all of XML 1.0 + names? Another approach might be to start with an abstract XML representation of an XML parse tree, and define a subset via an XSLT transformation, e.g. define an RDFS of an abstract XML parse tree. Define an XSLT transformation between the abstract XML parse tree and the RDFS defined in the XML Infoset appendix. The reason a transformation may be required rather than a mere subset is that the relationship between and typing of nodes in an XML parse tree is different from that in the Infoset or DOM (for example a whitespace sequence between attributes can be represented by a whitespace node in a parse tree). What I am getting at is that the rules for XML encoding aren't that complicated. So perhaps you've answered our question, in that "Property Sets" while "up to the task" are not an easy way to get things done. Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org
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