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

RE: Infosets a Horror Story? ( was Re: Article:"The

• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: RE: Infosets a Horror Story? ( was Re: Article:"The horror of XML")
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:45:35 -0500
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F8040EF718@R...>

10/31/2002 10:40:12 AM, "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...> wrote:

> Someone already did what you're asking for. It's called the 
> XPath 2.0/XQuery data model. 
>


"The data model is based on the [XML Information Set] (henceforth "Infoset"), but 
it requires the following new features to meet the [XPath Requirements Version 
2.0] and [XML Query Requirements]:

Support for XML Schema types. The XML Schema recommendations define features, such 
as structures ([XMLSchema Part 1]) and simple data types ([XMLSchema Part 2]), 
that extend the XML Information Set with precise type information.

Representation of collections of documents and of complex values. ([XML Query 
Requirements])"

That's not what *I* asked for! And I can't imagine very many people who would ask 
for the distinctions among integer, nonPositiveInteger, negativeInteger, long, 
int, short, byte, nonNegativeInteger, unsignedLong, unsignedInt, unsignedShort, 
unsignedByte, and positiveInteger to be baked into the core of XML.  

On the other hand, I need a Halloween costume, maybe I could go as a 
gHorribleKludge :-) 

• References:
  • RE: Infosets a Horror Story? ( was Re: Article: "The horror of XML")
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Distributed versus local processing
• Next by Date: RE: Infosets a Horror Story? ( was Re: Article: "The horror of XML")
• Previous by thread: RE: Infosets a Horror Story? ( was Re: Article: "The horror of XML")
• Next by thread: RE: Infosets a Horror Story? ( was Re: Article: "The horror of XML")
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread