Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Michael Kay wrote:
> No, this wasn't a game or a joke. In the InfoSet, ID-ness is a property of
> the attribute information item, it's not a property of the attribute
> declaration, in fact the attribute declaration isn't even in the InfoSet.
> XSLT transforms a tree to a tree, and the idea is that the tree reflects the
> InfoSet as closely as we can make it. But if the result tree doesn't contain
> attribute declarations, but does contain ID-ness as a property of the
> attribute instance, then we're going to end up with a tree that can't be
> serialized to XML, whether in streaming mode or otherwise.
>
> You can't parse an XML document to an InfoSet, make arbitrary changes to
> properties of objects in the InfoSet, and then serialize back to XML. I
> don't think that's a joke at all.
A bad joke, then! looks like a Gordian knot which each new specification
(W3C XML Schema, XPointer, SOAP, XML Infoset, ...) is tighting a
little bit more in deseperate efforts to find their own escape.
The editors of XML Infoset have been wise enough to write:
"It does not attempt to be exhaustive; the primary criterion for
inclusion of an information item or property has been that of expected
usefulness in future specifications. Nor does it constitute a minimum
set of information that must be returned by an XML processor."
I hope this clause might be used!
Thanks for the clarification,
Eric
>
> Mike Kay
--
Rendez-vous à Paris pour le Forum XML.
http://www.technoforum.fr/Pages/forumXML01/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
