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

Re: A simple guy with a simple problem

• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:50:03 -0800

Jonathan Borden wrote:
> Right, and so we define 'equivalence' between two documents as
> operationally:
> 
> 1) parsing two documents produces the same SAX events
> 2) parsing two documents produces an equivalent DOM object
> 
> (that's the simple way of saying that these two documents have the same
> infoset)

Actually, I'm convinced that we'll never define equivalence, except on a
per-application basis. One of the things I've become convinced by from
looking at the problems of round-tripping XML documents through
databases is that there are *many* levels of equivalance. The infoset
and canonical XML are just two of those, and it's useful to have them
standardized, but many applications would hold that these have too much
detail and others that they have not enough.

-- 
Ronald Bourret
Programming, Writing, and Training
XML, Databases, and Schemas
http://www.rpbourret.com

• References:
  • RE: A simple guy with a simple problem
    • From: Danny Ayers <danny@p...>
  • Re: A simple guy with a simple problem
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>
  • Re: A simple guy with a simple problem
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: A simple guy with a simple problem
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A simple guy with a simple problem
• Next by Date: RE: A simple guy with a simple problem
• Previous by thread: Re: A simple guy with a simple problem
• Next by thread: Re: A simple guy with a simple problem
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread