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

"The serialization of the XML Infoset is XML" (WAS:

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: "The serialization of the XML Infoset is XML" (WAS: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial))
• From: "Tomayko, Ryan" <Ryan_Tomayko@s...>
• Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:57:06 -0400

> John Cowan wrote: 

> "The serialization of the XML Infoset is XML"


I think this statement holds true for the base infoset rec, but how does
everyone feel about infoset extensions? I've been going over the latest
XInclude rec and noticed that the following from section 4.5 - "Creating the
Result Infoset" could potentially be harmful to John's statement:

<<
"Each top-level included item is assigned an extension property [included]
with the boolean value "true". Information items which were not processed as
top-level included items will have no value for the [included] property.
This property might be used by applications which require knowledge of where
inclusion has been performed."
>>

So, assuming I've run a source infoset through an XInclude processor and now
have an augmented result infoset that I wish to serialize as XML, is there
any way to maintain the exact state of the infoset? i.e. How do I preserve
extension properties like "included"?

Or are "extension properties" to the infoset only relevant during the
lifespan of the parse? 

Sorry if this has been hashed out before (maybe in regard to PSVI), but the
statement "The serialization of the XML Infoset is XML" seems only partially
true given the current state of the recs and drafts.

Thanks,

- Ryan Tomayko


-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...] 
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 11:26 AM
To: vdv@d...
Cc: aray@n...; xml-dev@l...
Subject: Re:  Underwhelmed (WAS:  XOM micro tutorial)


> On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 01:07, Arjun Ray wrote:

> AFAICS, a parser should cover everything in the infoset.  

Note that what got into the infoset was a purely arbitrary choice
by yours truly, with an eye to SAX, DOM (much diminished later) and
XPath.  There is nothing normative about the selections, and saying
"but it's in the infoset!" is no sort of reason why a parser ought
to support something.   Infoset conformance depends on documenting
what you in fact do support, neither more nor less.

> infortunate that there is no XML serialization of the XML infoset (and

The serialization of the XML Infoset is XML.

> that the PSVI wants to follow the same path -a different story and one
> of my favorite rants-).

I agree with you here.

-- 
Some people open all the Windows;       John Cowan
wise wives welcome the spring           jcowan@r...
by moving the Unix.                     http://www.reutershealth.com
  --ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.)       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        (see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: "The serialization of the XML Infoset is XML" (WAS: [x
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: "The serialization of the XML Infoset is XML" (WAS: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial))
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
• Next by Date: Re: "The serialization of the XML Infoset is XML" (WAS: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial))
• Previous by thread: Greenspun's tenth law rears its head: was InnerXml is like printf (WAS: Underwhelmed)
• Next by thread: Re: "The serialization of the XML Infoset is XML" (WAS: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread