• From: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w...>
• To: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@g...>, "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
• Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 02:57:27 -0500

On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 09:04 -0800, Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
> [...]
> But an XML document cannot contain infinite number of
> elements (unless W3C makes a new XML Spec allowing this -- and this
> would be conveniently hand-in-hand with XSLT streaming). 

I several times wished we had more data-flow people involved in XML,
XML Schema, XSLT, XQuery, XProc, and reached out with no success. As an
undergraduate i used a declarative data-flow language with lazy
evaluation where you could express the infinite sequnce of integers as
e.g.
    let $ints := 0 fby $ints + 1
(fby was the sequence construction operator "followed by").

I don't envision people joining W3C to standardise streming extensions
to XML Schema, although of course we'd welcome them if they did :)
There are public W3C ommunity groups, though, where such work could
coneceivably be done.

> Note: even XML well-formedness cannot be validated when streaming a
> document. This means that any serious XML streaming must be performed
> in transactional manner.

Right, and you have to handle a truncated document gracefully in many
situations too.

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Staff contact for Verifiable Claims WG, SVG WG, XQuery WG

Web slave for http://www.fromoldbooks.org/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Which is more declarative? More XMLish?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>

• References:
  • Which is more declarative? More XMLish?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Which is more declarative? More XMLish?
    • From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@g...>