> > I don't see why the actual syntatic construction of xml could
> > not itself be abstracted( instead of angle brackets, why not
> > slashes...etc ) and defined, a sorta schema for base/physical
> > format; maybe this is a route of introducing binary xml....ok
> > yes there are issues all over the place, just a thought.
>
> This is precisely why XSLT and XPath define the data model as an
> abstraction. You don't have to create the data model from a source XML
> document, you can create it from anything. If you want to define a
> format that is like XML except that the namespace declarations are
> contained in the end tags, you are free to do so, so long as you can
> parse it into the XPath data model. Whether it will catch on or not is
> another matter...

hmmmm, sometimes I think the W3's best intentions get buried in the
language.....wow....completely missed this point !

sorry to extend this thread, this is a very interesting point....which is
particularly relevent in a current project that is hitting performance
issues, and I am desperate for any fallback positions.

so I assume I have to read http://www.w3.org/TR/query-datamodel/ again, and
this time I have to 'get it'...any other pointers to related work would be
greatly appreciated....but after 5 minutes of googling....I suspect yet
again, that I am walking down a lonely path.

thx for making yet another concept clear to my poor little mind.

cheers, jim fuller


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list