Re: The subsetting has begun
Alaric B Snell wrote: > Since elements must be nested, and each element either has no parent elements > (the root element) or has precisely one immediate parent then a path of parents > up to the root, the elements form a tree. > > That doesn't mean you have to think of them as a tree all the time; SAX > doesn't. But they're still a tree. We're talking past each other. It's not the first time. I'll consider it a symptom of the failure of my expository skills. Your first paragraph above is polemic and, again I'm afraid, grounded in petitio principii. As the composer of an XML instance you intend a tree (which is perfectly your right). The WFCs, read in the light of that intent, support your argument for what constitutes a tree. QED, apparently. In the second paragraph you see another possibility; you even cite a familiar and common example. However, for your conclusion you revert to the premise/conclusion of the first paragraph. I understand perfectly what you want to say and in fact I sympathize with it. However, I am taking the time to analyze it in this way because the argument you make above is in fact the clone of the manner in which you expect to process XML. Intending a tree, you expect to see your instance processed as one. In tightly coupled interaction between a document creator and consumers who share a good deal of agreement outside the XML instance at hand, that is reasonable enough. It is not however the general case for the understanding and processing of XML instances qua XML instances, and never will be no matter how much you insist that it's still a tree. Again, to quote Gavin's masterful aphorism: ***The generic XML processor is a myth once you get past the syntax.*** Respectfully, Walter Perry
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