W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2002

RE: Potential new issue: PSVI considered harmful

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:25:30 -0700
Message-ID: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621CFB@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

-----Original Message----- 
From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@jclark.com] 
Sent: Sun 6/16/2002 11:29 PM 
To: www-tag@w3.org 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Potential new issue: PSVI considered harmful


>(a) It makes documents less self-contained.
 
As are documents with DOCTYPE declarations, stylesheet PIs, and XML include locations. 

>(b) Applications that depend on a PSVI now require a very complex,
>heavy-weight schema validation process, rather than a relatively simple
>parsing process.
 
Applications that depend on the PSVI must have a reason for doing so. The above statement is like saying "applications that depend on the Java JVM/.NET CLR must now deal with non-deterministic finalization and the inability to manually manage memory instead of simply running machine code directly" 
 
So what? Applications that depend on the PSVI have made the *choice* to do so. 

>(c) Applications that depends on a PSVI must agree not only on the choice
>of schema language but also on the choice of mechanism to locate the
>schema. 
 
Interesting criticism especially since many consider it a beneficial feature of W3C XML Schema. So what alternative would you propose? 

>(d) The PSVI is not XML; this is the most insidious problem. 
 
> You cannot perform the PSVI infoset augmentation as a separate XML to XML transformation. 
 
> when applications communicate using the XML infoset, they do not have to share an address space, because
> there is a standard serialization of an XML infoset as XML, but this does not apply with the PSVI. 
 
There are XML serializations of the PSVI. Granted, the ones I've seen are rather verbose but they do exist. 
Received on Monday, 17 June 2002 11:26:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:08 GMT