[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]

  • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • To: "'Kurt Cagle'" <kurt.cagle@g...>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 08:56:30 +0100


For purposes of discussion, suppose that you arbitrarily split sequence serialization from single-item serialization into non-XML formats because I believe they are actually qualitatively different problems. Referring only to the sequence serialization side of the problem here, I think the question is whether XML sequence serialization and parsing has to in fact be consumable by an XML parser. As I see it, you either end up specifying some arbitrary set of privileged xml sequence tags:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xml:sequence xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
    <xml:item value="foo" type="xs:string"/>
    <xml:item value="5" type="xs:positiveInteger"/>
    <xml:item type="document"><bar><bat/></bar></xml:item>
    <xml:item type="comment">foo</xml:item>
</xml:sequence>

or you work with a direct serialization as described earlier, possibly with RDF encodings for type:

(<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>,"foo",5^positiveInteger,<bar><bat/></bar>,<!-- foo -->)

 
I agree those are two of the more obvious choices on the table, but using a negative word "arbitrary" to describe one, and a positive word "direct" to describe the other, seems to be prejudging which is a better fit to the requirements of the use cases, without actually stating any rationale.
 

Regards,

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
http://twitter.com/michaelhkay

 
 
 
 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member