Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I'm circling back to the concepts Henry talks about in his presentations discussed a while back, that we are *always* processing infoSet values. Where we may differ is that if that is so, then the infoSet is not defined by the schema. The schema may add information to the infoSet by adding values, and so may other applications (all of these schemas so far with the exception of DTDs are schemas). The infoSet definition itself is immutable, or closed with respect to the extent of the process. It can only be changed by the outer process; that of human specification. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@C...] On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > I think Henry is right similar to the way the Grove guys > were right. Where is Henry right? I say that we almost always end up with non-deterministic content models during document processing. I also say that unique particle attribution as in XML Schema is *very* exaggerated, if we need UPA (i doubt if we need it), we need UPA as provided by unambiguous regular tree grammars. regards - murali.
|
