• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: RE: PSVI and XPath 2.0 data model
• From: jborden@a...
• Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:39:22 +0000
• Cc: <michael.h.kay@n...>, <public-qt-comments@w...>, <xml-dev@l...>

Elliotte,

> At 12:04 AM +0100 5/8/02, Michael Kay wrote:

> >I think the closest we could get to that might be to require that an
> >implementor documents a method of constructing the input tree from an XML
> >document using the "standard mapping" of XML documents to trees.
> 
> That's a start. However, this must be the default behavior. Anything 
> beyond that should be at user option only.
> 

I think what this means in practice is that the Infoset
for better or worse is the only reasonable "standard mapping"
of an XML document to a tree. XSDL does define a specific
transform between an Infoset and a "PSVI"  and XSLT 2.0 takes
such a "PSVI" as an input -- so far so good. Do you really
want to _limit us_ to using XSDL as the only mechanism of
specifying a "PSVI" i.e. suppose someone writes a perfectly
good RELAXNG processor that emits a "PSVI", are you saying
that you want to disallow this?

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: PSVI and XPath 2.0 data model
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPath 1.5? (was RE: typing and markup)
• Next by Date: RE: XPath 1.5? (was RE: typing and markup)
• Previous by thread: Standard for Customer references in XML?
• Next by thread: Re: RE: PSVI and XPath 2.0 data model
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread