• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Infoset vs pure syntax permathread (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:28:23 -0500
• In-reply-to: <oprk5qkquhezizxn@s...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B54D2A@R...> <200302250100.09063.gtn@r...> <oprk5qkquhezizxn@s...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.4.3

On Tuesday 25 February 2003 10:56 am, Mike Champion wrote:
> XQuery in both theory (the spec) and practice (e.g. Microsoft's stuff that
> Dare was showing at XML 2002) operates off a data model (aka Infoset, more
> or less) that encompasses both XML and the relational model. 

Are you saying that XQuery model is a superset of the relational model?

> Since it incorporates XPath by reference, XPath is therefore a globally
> applicable addressing mechanism for data that can be represented in the
> datamodel/infoset.  What's wrong with that logic?

Only that the datamodel/infoset is necessarily constrained to one world view.

One immediate problem that people have with XML is the lack of structure in 
attributes... which is reflected in the infoset.

• References:
  • RE: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Infoset vs pure syntax permathread (was Re: The subsettinghas begun)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Next by Date: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Previous by thread: Infoset vs pure syntax permathread (was Re: The subsettinghas begun)
• Next by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread