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

Re: data model

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:25:18 -0400
To: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
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: <20121001192518.GE23095@mercury.ccil.org>
David Lee scripsit:

> I have always (without asking) considered the word choice of "processor"
> to be intentionally chosen to NOT imply "parser".

The XML Rec says:

    [Definition: A software module called an XML processor is used
    to read XML documents and provide access to their content and
    structure.] [Definition: It is assumed that an XML processor
    is doing its work on behalf of another module, called the
    application.] This specification describes the required behavior
    of an XML processor in terms of how it must read XML data and
    the information it must provide to the application.

That makes it the parser.  Indeed, the word "parser" only appears three
times in the 5th Edition, all of them arguably errors for "processor".

> Isnt "XSLT" considered a "processor" even though it is not a "parser" ?

Yes, but it's not an XML processor.  XSLT 2.0 says:

    [Definition: The software responsible for transforming source
    trees into result trees using an XSLT stylesheet is referred to
    as the processor. This is sometimes expanded to XSLT processor
    to avoid any confusion with other processors, for example an
    XML processor.]

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

Nah, it was just an oversight that's never been considered important
enough to fix.

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

We have.  We now use "parser" instead of "processor", like the rest of the
industry.  I don't know exactly why "processor" was adopted; presumably
because an SGML parser does a lot besides parsing.  The same is true of an
XML processor, to a lesser degree.  MicroXML parsers really do just parse.

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

Yeah, it was a strained example.  The wc example is better.

-- 
I marvel at the creature: so secret and         John Cowan
so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool   cowan@ccil.org
before our very window.  Does he think that     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Men sleep without watch all night?
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 19:25:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 1 October 2012 19:25:42 GMT