On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 11:31, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > Documents may now be read as describing multiple infosets - one > >including XInclude elements as elements, one representing the result of > >complete infoset merging, and various infosets representing possible > >failure states. > > > > No, that's the confusion. A single XML document describes a single > infoset. A single document does not describe multiple infosets. > Performing inclusion on a document generates a new infoset, which if > you choose can be serialized into a new document. (Actually there are > a few holes in the spec here, but they're not relevant to the current > discussion.) This is not, however, the infoset that was described by > any of the original documents (again, except in the trivially > uninteresting case where the original document did not contain any > xinclude:include elements). > > Documents may not be read as describing multiple infosets, at least > not if you wish to be conformant to the various W3C specs. You can > use XInclusion to produce new infosets from old infosets, but then > you can do this with XSLT, SAX, or DOM, so this is nothing new. I'm sorry, Elliotte, but I think we've reached the basis of our confusion. I see documents as actually having content, not as a framework for performing potentially randomly-sequenced infoset transformations in order to figure out what the content might/should be. The old distinction between logical and entity models made it possible to distinguish the content of a document (entity model) from its content - the logical model - while still permitting some shortcuts on the entity side. You appear to be defining XML processing as a set of algorithms performed upon infosets, each of which is a unique abstraction. While I don't mind work at that level in cases where we already know what the document contains, I have to oppose it as a technique for determining the actual contents of the document. In ways I find important, XML works because I can say "show me the bytes" and actually do something with the bytes, not with potentially unknown understanding of what infoset those bytes are really talking about. It used to be that in a worst case I case say "show me the canonicalized bytes", but XInclude appears to take away that option. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
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