Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 12:44 PM +0100 8/1/00, Sean McGrath wrote: >[At 20:56 31/07/00 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:] >> >>Suppose this: we define a 100% complete abstract model of an XML 1.0, and >>XML Namespace compliant document, and also define a mechanism for defining >>subsets of such an abstract model. Sort of the opposite of base class >>inheritance where sub classes gain properties, we define a pruning mechanism >>to eliminate certain properties from subsets of the base information set. In >>this scenario, the current XML Information Set would be derived from the >>full fidelity Base XML Information Set. > >Count me in. > >This is the sort of "partical physics" I think we need >beneath XML 1. > But there is a particle physics beneath the InfoSet that applications can use if they like. It's called the stream. The particles are bytes. That may seem a little too fundamental to you, and you may want something a little higher level. OK. But all we're doing here is arguing about which layers of abstraction are useful. +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@m... | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | The XML Bible (IDG Books, 1999) | | http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/books/bible/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764532367/cafeaulaitA/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
