W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Proposal for Issue 6700

From: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:59:05 -0700
Message-ID: <4A9828F9.4050809@oracle.com>
To: Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
CC: "Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
I think the purpose of doing it this way is twofold:

1.) It saves the effort of having to go through the description of every 
element and attribute and change that description to Infoset terminology.

2.) It reduces the potential for confusion inherent in the use of 
Infoset terminology. Like it or not, 99% of developers use XML 1.0 
exclusively and tend to think in XML 1.0 terms. Requiring them to map 
between Infoset terminology and XML 1.0 terminology makes the spec 
harder to read.

I think you are confusing "defined in" with "described by". By asserting 
that the specifications are "defined in" Infoset we are declaring that 
the normative definition of the elements and attributes in the spec are 
based on a abstract document structure. This allows for implementations 
that may use serializations other than XML 1.0. The fact that these 
elements and attributes are "described in" XML 1.0 terms is merely a 
convenient, notional shorthand that makes it easier for 99% of the 
readers to understand. As long as the mapping from XML 1.0 to Infoset it 
complete, there shouldn't be any problems.

Which brings me to my next point, how is the mapping 'partial'?

- gp

On 8/27/2009 5:42 PM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
> I like to question the purpose of this exercise (issue).
>
>   
>> This specification is defined in terms of XML Information Set (Infoset) and not in terms of XML 1.0, even though the specification uses XML 1.0
>>     
> terminology.
>
> The first part says that the specification is defined in Infoset notation, but the later part says that the specification is uses XML 1.0 terminology. Is it true that the specification is defined in terms of Infoset?
>
> Further, the mapping provided in the second paragraph of the proposal is a partial mapping and not a complete one.
>
> What is the point of leaving the exercise of mapping the XML document to Infoset as an exercise to the reader. What do we gain by saying this?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Li, Li (Li)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:47 AM
> To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
> Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
> Subject: Proposal for Issue 6700
>
>
> This proposal is based on the consensus between Ashok, Wu and Gil. To
> complete the Infoset description for WS-Eventing, we propose to just add
> the following text at the end of "Section 3.1 Notational Conventions" of
> WS-Eventing, instead of following the approach taken by 6424:
>
> ---
> This specification is defined in terms of XML Information Set (Infoset)
> and not in terms of XML 1.0, even though the specification uses XML 1.0
> terminology. A mapping from XML to Infoset is straightforward as
> described below, and it is recommended that this should be used for any
> non-XML serializations.
>
> XML documents map to Infoset Document Information Items.  XML Elements
> map to Infoset Element Information Items (EIIs) and attributes map to
> Infoset Attribute Information Items (AIIs).  The *children* property of
> an Element Information Item (EII) is a collection of EIIs corresponding
> to its Element Children.  The *attributes* property of an EII is a
> collection of AIIs corresponding to its attributes.
>
> See the Infoset specification [http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/] for
> more details.
> ---
>
> We hope this proposal can be applied to related issues 6701-6704 as
> well, by adding the above text to the "Notational Conventions" section
> of each corresponding spec.
>
> Li Li
>
>
>
>
>   


Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 20:31:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:09 GMT