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

Re: Intent of ER-XML

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:05:18 +0100
Cc: public-xml-er@w3.org
Message-Id: <D281B595-568F-42E2-A00E-A81299EF5786@berjon.com>
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
On Feb 27, 2012, at 19:19 , David Carlisle wrote:
> The second phase is (currently) described as building a DOM tree but it
> only uses the language of nodes and attributes, so DOM is just being
> used as an abstract tree description. It doesn't use any methods from a
> DOM API as far as I can see.

Right  the point is to have a well-defined common understanding of what an element, attribute, etc. are. The fact that it maps onto something that one can immediately implement is, I find, very helpful in making it concrete.

> So long as the final wording makes it clear that it is conformant to
> implement an xml-er parser by (say) representing the final output tree
> by a series of sax events (or as a string representing a well formed
> document) then I don't have any particular issues with the style in the
> current draft.

I don't think that that would be a problem. (It would be technically difficult to do this usefully on an HTML parser given the amount of backtracking that it can find itself needing, but I don't see that being the case here.)

> The current draft doesn't really do anything (much) towards specifying a
> processor (even one using a DOM AI) Nothing about how the nput is fed
> in, or how the results and.or errors are fed back out.

Exactly, it only uses the DOM as a concrete definition of the data model that is used to interpret the document from the token stream. That's why I'm having trouble seeing what we gain from dropping that.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Coming up soon: I'm teaching a W3C online course on Mobile Web Apps
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 21:05:47 UTC

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