Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:49:31 -0500, David Lee wrote:
> By "support" I know that is vague, but I don't have a better word yet.
> I'm trying to reanimate my thinking and work on an XDM Serialization
> specification which is usable for data exchange.
> So for example if I serialize to a stream (or file)
>
> document { 1 , "hi" , <foo/> , 2 }
>
> then then deserialize that back into XDM values ... how "important" is it to
> reconstruct the sequence inside the document.
You've shown similar sequences several times, but ... they aren't valid
normalized XDM. You can't have adjacent text nodes.
That may not make much difference, but it makes *some*. The examples
that you've shown, with adjacent text nodes containing atoms of
different types, won't round trip. It's perfectly feasible to
round-trip similar examples with text children of a document node that
does *not* contain adjacent text node children, though (so long as the
parser and serializer agree not to barf).
> In my personal case, its not important at all to me because I would never
> (knowingly) construct such a node. And in fact it came as a great surprise
> that XDM supported it.
> (learn something new every day !)
I don't believe that the *exact* examples you've provided are legal--at
least, not when constructing/parsing or when serializing. I think you
can have such a state, in theory (though since you can't construct it,
as I understand it, I'm not sure whether it's significant).
Amy!
--
Amelia A. Lewis amyzing {at} talsever.com
What makes me think I could start clean-slated?
The hardest to learn was the least complicated.
-- Emily Saliers
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
