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

Re: Formal definition of PSVI

• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Formal definition of PSVI
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 18:36:21 -0800
• In-reply-to: <01cd01c18133$6485f3a0$0500a8c0@carnage>
• References: <01cd01c18133$6485f3a0$0500a8c0@carnage> <3C10D664.5050908@d...> <007a01c17f57$3e5c1930$0500a8c0@carnage> <3C10F483.8050708@d...> <3C12736F.BA4355BD@r...> <3C137E63.4040701@d...> <3C13CB64.D4CC0882@r...> <3C13FA29.1090309@d...>

Dare Obasanjo  wrote:

> Exactly how is the XML infoset supposed to be represented and/or accessed by
> application programmers?

It's deliberately left unspecified in the Infoset spec.
The intent is that specific APIs document what parts of the
Infoset they support and how it's supported.

> Since the infoset seems to mirror the DOM to some
> degree will the primary usage model be some sort of DOM-like API with current
> DOM implementations being given the ability to support it with certain
> extensions?

There is no more a primary usage model for the Infoset
than there is for XML itself;  DOM, SAX, and XSLT all
support the Infoset, but in very different ways.

> Or is the XML Infoset recommendation supposed to exist merely as
> reference for use in discussions between experts and others with domain
> knowledge without it actually having any implementation impact on users of XM
> in general?

More or less.  The Infoset REC is mostly for design
and documentation purposes.  It provides a common vocabulary
so programmers can tell (for example) that what the SAX
documentation calls an "element information item" is the
same thing as what the DOM documentation calls an "element
information item".

> Finally, the XML infoset is particularly DTD centric with little if any
> mention of XML schemas but on the other hand I keep hearing about the PSVI
> with regards to schema awareness and data types, is there any reason for this
> disjointedness or is there some discussion or document I can be pointed to
> that clarifies the issue?

REC-xml-infoset includes a [document type declaration] information
item because <!DOCTYPE ...> declarations are part of XML 1.0.
REC-xmlschema-* defines new information items that schema-aware
processors must also support (i.e., a PSVI).  These new information
items aren't part of REC-xml-infoset because they aren't part of
XML 1.0.  Does that clarify things?


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Formal definition of PSVI
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>

• References:
  • Re: Formal definition of PSVI (was Where have the element types gone?)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>
  • Where have the element types gone?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: Where have the element types gone?
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>
  • Re: Where have the element types gone?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: Where have the element types gone?
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: Where have the element types gone?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: Where have the element types gone?
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: Where have the element types gone?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Formal definition of PSVI (was Where have the element types gone?)
• Next by Date: Re: Formal definition of PSVI (was Where have the element types gone?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Formal definition of PSVI (was Where have the element types gone?)
• Next by thread: Re: Formal definition of PSVI
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread