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

Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:17:09 +1000
• References: <r01050300-1015-F0FD3010AFF411D683CE0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

> Joe English writes:
> > AFAICT, it's not so much the idea of an augmented infoset
> > that people find disagreeable about the PSVI, it's the
> > nature (and quantity!) of the data that a W3C XML Schema
> > validator adds to the Infoset.
> 
> Yes.

When people talk about "infoset augmentation" they often talk at
cross purposes, because there are three different meanings. These
need to be clearly distinguished.

1) augmented infoset = more information items of the kinds in XML Infoset spec are added to an existing document
2) augmented infoset = new kinds of information items are added/linked to an existing document.
3) augmented infoset = information items are declared to have a type; that type has properties or facets;
     functions that act on data can be type-checked and the type information for function signatures 
     or used for storage etc.

The first brings up no serialization issues and works with existing technologies.

The second raises serialization and architecture issues.  

The third raises no serialization errors.  

It would be better to have separate terms for these. For example, "augented XML infoset",
"typed infoset",  "type signature". 

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: What the .... ? Referencing XSL stylesheets across domains
• Next by Date: Re: SLAIX (was: Can XLink be fixed)
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Next by thread: RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread