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

Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 22:41:36 -0800
• References: <2X3W74B8GAHBN4Z63D8A6KFZIHHGNJ.3c855805@MChamp> <200203060138.g261ctu10329@d...>

Joe English wrote:
> The general idea of Infoset augmentation is I think very useful,
> but I'm starting to think that doing it as part of validation
> is not a good idea.

I definitely agree. Interest in an augmented infoset is orthogonal to
validation. You presumably want an augmented infoset for meta-data
driven programming. This has nothing to do with whether you believe your
document is valid or needs to be checked.

Also orthogonal is the addition of data (as opposed to metadata). The
easiest example is adding default values. This has nothing to do with
data types (the most common form of augmentation) or validation.

-- Ron

• Follow-Ups:
  • Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: canonicalization
• Next by Date: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)
• Previous by thread: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by thread: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread