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

Re: Infoset chewing gum (was Re: linking, 80/20)

• To: Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...>
• Subject: Re: Infoset chewing gum (was Re: linking, 80/20)
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:06:34 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <r01050300-1015-DA98C47CB39E11D69F470003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]> <3D6138CA.8040801@d...> <3D615DA6.40301@t...> <3D617599.3030509@d...>

Erik Wilde wrote:
> 
>...
> i think that once you start doing interesting and diverse things with
> structured data, there must be a common understanding what is relevant
> and what is not, so in summary: what is the essential content of the
> data. and i think this is where the infoset started. xquery would be
> impossible with only the xml syntax. dom had to made the same decisions
> (though it made some of the differently).

That's fine. Infoset extensions are wonderful for spec writers. More
power to the infoset!

But the issue at hand is a *syntactic* *interoperability* issue. When I
see:

<foo gref="http://www.foo.com"/>

can I interpret that syntax as an XLink or not? Some people say "you
don't need to do that, just use:"

<foo xlink:href="http://www.foo.com"/> (or the archform equivalent)

Others say, I could use some kind of out-of-line annotation:

<rule match="foo"><map-to-xlink href="@gref"/> (or the CSS equivalent)

But solving the problem at a semantic level without having a syntactic
way to map from syntax to semantic is not helpful except for the few
vocabularies hard-coded into browsers.

The infoset is a useful solution to the spec-writers problem of how to
talk about XLink information once it has been recognized. But it doesn't
help with the recognition.
-- 
"When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim 
suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith 
-- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk."
Congressman James Traficant.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Infoset chewing gum (was Re: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • RE: Infoset chewing gum (was Re: linking, 80/20)
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• References:
  • Infoset chewing gum (was Re: linking, 80/20)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Infoset chewing gum (was Re: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...>
  • Re: Infoset chewing gum (was Re: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Infoset chewing gum (was Re: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Next by Date: Re: linking, 80/20
• Previous by thread: Re: Infoset chewing gum (was Re: linking, 80/20)
• Next by thread: RE: Infoset chewing gum (was Re: linking, 80/20)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread