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

Re: XPath for Infoset extensions [was Annotations in

• To: wperry@f... (W. E. Perry)
• Subject: Re: XPath for Infoset extensions [was Annotations in
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:28:01 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l... (XML DEV)
• In-reply-to: <3DA18B6A.838CA784@f...> from "W. E. Perry" at Oct 07, 2002 09:26:02 AM

W. E. Perry scripsit:

> No, I am saying the converse. If the Infoset is the barest possible
> abstraction from the syntax defined as XML 1.0, then in any case where we
> are enlarging (or enlarging our understanding of) the Infoset we are
> dealing with XML itself--that is, with the syntactic framework defined in
> the Recommendation, and not with any one vocabulary or application of XML.

There's a confusion of levels lurking here.  An infoset may be represented
in two different ways: as the native XML from which it was derived,
or with some other representation particular to infosets.  This latter
may or may not be an application of XML.

The first representation has the advantage that it is simple and clear;
it has the disadvantage that it cannot in general represent infosets that
contain non-standard item types or properties.  The second representation
is generally quite opaque, but has the advantage that it can easily be
extended to represent enhanced infosets.

SLAIX is a general-purpose representation of infosets that
has the advantages of uniformity,  extreme extensibility,
and being an application of XML.  Its disadvantages
are that it is verbose, grotesque, and unreadable.  See
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200208/msg00875.html

> The serialized infoset schema which you
> cite, and quite rightly identify as only a single vocabulary or
> application of XML, does not expand the Infoset nor add any new capability
> to it. In fact, I am unsure what that vocabulary offers at all.

It offers a serialization syntax specific to infosets.

> I must insist (as I have before:
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200209/msg00782.html) that XML is
> the serialization;

If you say "a serialization", I agree.

> by the nature of the Infoset, no single vocabulary or
> application of XML is broad enough to be posited as "the" Infoset
> serialization.

The Infoset, considered as an abstract data structure, contains a small
number of types each of which has a small number of attributes (not attributes
in the XML sense).  It is easy to define a dozen different serializations of
this data structure, whether XML applications or otherwise, off the top
of one's head.

-- 
John Cowan                                jcowan@r...
At times of peril or dubitation,          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Perform swift circular ambulation,        http://www.reutershealth.com
With loud and high-pitched ululation.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XPath for Infoset extensions [was Annotations in
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

• References:
  • Re: XPath for Infoset extensions [was Annotations in XPath-NG?]
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Divorcing Data Model and Syntax: was Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Next by Date: RE: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Previous by thread: Re: XPath for Infoset extensions [was Annotations in XPath-NG?]
• Next by thread: Re: XPath for Infoset extensions [was Annotations in
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread