Re: XPath Data Model proposal

Jonathan Robie scripsit:

> If I understand Norm correctly, Elliotte Rusty Harold was asking for that, 
> but Norm wasn't. Norm, was that something that you support?

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Jun/0029.html .

> At any rate, the current mappings do not support *any* W3C XML-Schema 
> semantics in the Infoset-only mapping. I do think this is a slippery slope, 
> and I wouldn't support it. In effect, both you and Elliotte are asking that 
> we support the syntax of XML 1.x, but change the semantics by adding some 
> pieces that each of you like.

That's pretty much what Namespaces does, too: certain attributes get magic
values that effect the understandings about other attributes and elements.

> But it's not just XPath, is it? Suppose the path expression were issued 
> from the DOM, wouldn't you like those types to be available in the DOM 
> representation as well?

1) DOM is getting an XPath (1.0) module, and may some day get XPath 2.0 as well.

2) The best is the enemy of the good.  There is a lot of grass-roots opposition
to requiring a PSVI (or Schema processing generally); providing this relatively
modest addition to the Infoset will help deflate that.

> Personally, I would like to see a small, simple way 
> to add datatypes to documents governed by DTDs,

Or schemaless (lower-case s) documents generally.

-- 
MEET US AT POINT ORANGE AT MIDNIGHT BRING YOUR DUCK OR PREPARE TO FACE WUGGUMS
John Cowan   http://www.reutershealth.com   jcowan@reutershealth.com

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 15:39:51 UTC