W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-microxml@w3.org > October 2012

RE: data model

From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:32:35 -0700
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
CC: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, "stephengreenubl@gmail.com" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>, Maik Stührenberg <maik.stuehrenberg@uni-bielefeld.de>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EB42045A1F00224E93B82E949EC6675E16B0EC856E@EXCHG-BE.marklogic.com>
I have always (without asking) considered the word choice of "processor" to be intentionally chosen to NOT imply "parser".

That is, it *processes* XML ... which may or may not be "parsing"
Or else "they" would have used "parser"
Isnt "XSLT" considered a "processor" even though it is not a "parser" ?

Maybe that is why there is no requirement for "processors" to do things like report elements.

Maybe it would be good to break from tradition and make the words explicitly different so nincompoops like myself can tell them apart.

"parser" - A program which exposes the MicroXML document as an API corresponding to the Abstract Data Model
"processor" - A program which processes data in a MicroXML document for some result (not enumerated by the spec), 
  but implies the result is created according to (conformance with) the MicroXML  Data Model.

As for Fortran Vs C ... you totally lost me but thats fine.

David Lee
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 812-482-5224
Cell:  +1 812-630-7622

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 1:13 PM
To: David Lee
Cc: James Clark; stephengreenubl@gmail.com; Maik Stührenberg; public-microxml@w3.org
Subject: Re: data model

David Lee scripsit:

> Note I am distinguishing between "parser" and "processor" I suggest
> there are valid and conformance roles for both.  And they are quite
> different.

Historically these terms have always meant the same thing in the SGML/XML
world.  But if you want to distinguish them, fine; the abstract data
model and MicroXML conformance pertain only to parsers.

> Current wc(1) probably isn't uf8 aware so wouldn't count. 

The GNU, BSD, and Solaris versions definitely are, provided you set the
locale correctly.

> Why is a program that produces the output I want being considered
> conformant absurd ?

It's absurd to suppose that a Fortran compiler conforms to C.  The fact
that you want to compile Fortran has nothing to do with that judgement.
Similarly, programs can process MicroXML without needing to be conformant

Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead               John Cowan
of the Open Source movement.                    cowan@ccil.org
        --Bruce Perens,                         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
          some years ago
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 17:33:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:12:11 UTC