W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-er@w3.org > February 2012

RE: Intent of ER-XML

From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:29:24 -0800
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
CC: "public-xml-er@w3.org" <public-xml-er@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EB42045A1F00224E93B82E949EC6675E16ADCEF073@EXCHG-BE.marklogic.com>
Maybe "processing model" is the right word.
I'm looking at the XInclude spec right now  http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/
To my first casual re-read (its been A few years ...) this appears to be at about the right level of abstraction in my mind.

The abstract doesn't use the word "processor" at all but rather "processing model"

	"This document specifies a processing model and syntax for general purpose inclusion."

But later on it discusses a processor that implements this model :

	" XInclude processing occurs at a low level, often by a generic XInclude processor which makes the resulting information set available to higher level applications." 

I like the level of abstraction that sentence hits. 

David Lee
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 650-287-2531
Cell:  +1 812-630-7622

This e-mail and any accompanying attachments are confidential. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail communication by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:56 AM
> To: Noah Mendelsohn
> Cc: David Lee; public-xml-er@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Intent of ER-XML
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 19:52 , Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> > On 2/26/2012 11:16 AM, David Lee wrote:
> >> B) Wrong Question XML-ER specs do not define a 'Processor'
> >>
> >> 3) XML-ER does not define an implementation of anything.  Rather it
> defines
> >> a set of rules for fixing up XML.
> >
> > This is pretty much my answer, though I'd prefer to say something like "it's
> a set of rules for mapping an input document to an output tree, with the
> following specific requirements:
> It's very much possible that I'm being dumb and missing an important
> distinction here but I'm having a hard time figuring out how we could define
> a mapping from an input document to an output tree that would be all of
> interoperable, usable, and not a processor. Can someone please illuminate
> me?
> Or are we having the old XML "syntax vs data model" debate *again*? If so
> please tell me, I think I still have some emails stocked up for that
> permathread, need to check the good-by date on them ;)
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
> Coming up soon: I'm teaching a W3C online course on Mobile Web Apps
> http://www.w3devcampus.com/writing-great-web-applications-for-mobile/
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 15:30:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:47:26 UTC