Re: DOM WG comments on XQuery 1.0 XPath 2.0 Data Model

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/ Ray Whitmer <raydwhitmer@aol.com> was heard to say:
| <h2>DOM2</h2>
| In XPDM2 4.3.4, [namespace attributes] are returned as "the sequence of
| <b>namespace information item</b>s constructed from the nodes that are
| present in the difference between the sequence of nodes returned by the
| <span class="function"><a  href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#dm-namespaces"><span  class="prefix">dm:</span>namespaces</a></span> accessor on this
| element and the sequence of nodes returned by the <span  class="function"><a  href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#dm-namespaces"><span  class="prefix">dm:</span>namespaces</a></span> accessor of this
| element's <span class="function"><a  href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#dm-parent"><span  class="prefix">dm:</span>parent</a></span>".<br>
| <br>
| But [namespace attributes] is information which was not accounted for
| in XPDM2.&nbsp; Claiming that this information is always the delta
| seems inaccurate and causes problems.&nbsp; If, for example, the data
| model is built on a model such as DOM which preserves this information,
| this would seem to force a processor to ignore the more-accurate
| available information and rely on false information.&nbsp; This means
| that DOM and XPDM2 cannot be seen as views of a single unified data
| model and may make it quite difficult to produce functions which rely
| on this information which XPath has lost.<br>
| <br>
| For example, let's say the environment containing the XPath
| implementation contains a function which verifies a digital signature
| on a subtree, returning a boolean.&nbsp; In terms of XPath, it is
| impossible to detect whether the signature is correct or not, because
| the signature is different depending upon exactly where the declaration
| is in the infoset, between cases which produce identical XPath
| data.&nbsp; The function could gather the rest of the information
| missing from DOM or some other more-complete infoset representation,
| but XPath's declaration that it possesses the infoset information which
| turns out to be flawed confuses and seems to hide the real accurate
| information that may be required by other infoset operations.<br>
| <br>
| This is a problem seen in other cases in XPDM2, where inaccurate
| information is used in the mapping to cover for information not carried
| by XPDM2.&nbsp; The infoset mapping should not claim to posses this
| infoset information which it does not which interferes if the actual
| information is present.<br>

These sections have been removed from the 12 Nov draft.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD4DBQE/skw0OyltUcwYWjsRAucYAJiaJ1URbCqNd4TcS/P591izU93uAJ9q6bx1
HIZ/ufnbf+wiL3ta01rnkw==
=MbFQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2003 20:19:35 UTC