• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Formal definition of PSVI (was Where have the element types gone?)
• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:21:42 GMT
• Cc:
• In-reply-to: <003801c1818a$68793b50$13b7c0d8@A...>
• Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

Rick wrote:

>It is very doubtful that there are performance gains in transporting
>around a PSVI-in-XML such as Richard & Henry's document type, rather
>than revalidating the document. A PSVI DOM only requires that the
>type reference in the node point to a different location, so should
>be just as efficent as a conventional DOM AFAIK.  Richard & Henry's
>PSVI document type is good for debugging, teaching, testing
>implementations, but I doubt if they would propose it as a notation
>for data transport, caching and storage.

The original purpose of the serialization was for comparing the output
of schema implementations.  It has also proved useful for teaching and
a variety of testing purposes.

I have a stylesheet for converting the serialized pre-schema infoset
to HTML tables (http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/infoset.xsl), but
I haven't had time to do this for the PSVI.

It is certainly very verbose for a transport format, though it
naturally compresses very well :-) One other possible use is for
bootstrapping a validator, if you want to always validate schemas with
the schema-for-schemas.

-- Richard

• References:
  • Re: Formal definition of PSVI (was Where have the element types gone?)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: validating hairy data models (was Attribute order)
• Next by Date: Re: Re: validating hairy data models (was Attribute order)
• Previous by thread: Re: Formal definition of PSVI (was Where have the element types gone?)
• Next by thread: Re: Formal definition of PSVI
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread