[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Documents and Document Fragments (Was RE: XML Information Set Requir
James Tauber wrote: > We must be careful when using the word "document" because it > does have a > specific meaning in the XML spec. It is *NOT* true that a > document may be > inside another document in the logical sense in which the > word is used in > the spec. That's right ... and I'm not saying that. I put apostrophes around all sorts of key words (like the word contains) to emphasise that I am not trying to be literal. My meaning was that an element within a document can itself be treated as a document - and still fit with the spec, despite what you say next. > An XML *document* (document in the spec sense) is > PROLOG+ELEMENT+optional > EPILOG. > You can't have PROLOGs in the content of elements, therefore > you cannot have > document in documents if you mean document in the spec sense. > (note that all > XML document have a prolog even if it is empty). I was saying that an element is equivalent to a well-formed document (with an empty prolog) and this gives us certain advantages. For example, if I have in my database: object type issue, with issue number set to 67 and ... a container of articles of which ... the first is article 1 with a container full of paragraphs ... of which the first says "This is para 1" and the second says "This is para 2" and the third says "this is para 3" and the second is article 2 with a container full of paragraphs ... of which the first says "This is para 1" and the second says "This is para 2" [I spell this out because if I show it with tags, everyone will think I am referring to one *physical* XML document, which I am not.] then I can export a 'proper' XML document from this, such as: <article number="2"> <para>This is para 1</para> <para>This is para 2</para> </article> as well as: <issue number="67"> <article number="1"> <para>This is para 1</para> <para>This is para 2</para> <para>This is para 3</para> </article> <article number="2"> <para>This is para 1</para> <para>This is para 2</para> </article> </issue> or even the 'proper' document: <para>This is para 2</para> All of these are well-formed 'documents' in the logical sense but have no relationship to a physical document of any form. Of course, if all of your documents (logical) are stored as text files (physical), or to put it another way, if there is a one-to-one mapping between your physical and logical XML documents, then none of this is of any use to you; you will have a lot of trouble querying across documents, and no means of creating dynamic documents. On the other hand, if you have no documents, but thousands of nodes of data in a database that you can export and query, then the difference between a logical document and a physical one is key. (Further, you could also generate an inline DTD from your schema as the prolog to each document, if you wanted. Or just point to an external one.) I pointed out that all this fits with the XML 1.0 notion of a logical document, in order to stress that we don't need some other terms inventing to cope with these concepts. The fact that the three examples I gave above are all subsets of a greater whole, does not in any way affect that they are all still perfectly acceptable XML documents. We don't then need to go back to the original data and say that because we can get many documents from a bigger document, that document must therefore be referred to as an 'uberdocument'; to quote you: > Yep. This is the idea I'm exploring. I'm just using the term > "überdocument" > for the "one massive document". But it's still a document (logical), just like the other three. And equally, we don't really need to say that because those three documents came from a greater document they must be 'document fragments'. (I say 'don't really', because there are situations such as getting a parser to select part of a *physical* document, when the term 'fragment' might be useful.) To conclude, there's nothing wrong with introducing new terms, but I feel that they must clarify something, or point towards something that has not been addressed before. But as far as I can see, all of the concepts we need to cope with the idea of an 'XML document server', etc., *are* present in XML 1.0. Regards, Mark Mark Birbeck Managing Director Intra Extra Digital Ltd. 39 Whitfield Street London W1P 5RE w: http://www.iedigital.net/ t: 0171 681 4135 e: Mark.Birbeck@i... xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
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
|