W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2004

Re: XML Chunk Equality

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:27:03 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040907171540.00bb5198@127.0.0.1>
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, www-tag@w3.org

At 11:30 07/09/04 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
>Several weeks ago, I took an action item to turn the email I drafted
>about XML chunk equality into a finding. Here's a first editor's draft
>of such a finding.
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlChunkEquality.html
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm

A couple of comments...

Section 2.3:

You explicitly exclude xml:lang, but don't mention xml:base here, though 
you mention above that xml:base attributes are excluded for 
xml:base-conformant applications.

I'm tending to think that it might be simpler to simply exlcude xml:base 
from consideration:  if an application is xml:base conformant then its 
effect is on the rest of the infoset as expected.  For applications that 
are not xml:base conformant, isn't the attribute meaningless 
anyway?  (Which suggests to me that documents that differ only in xml:base 
attributes convey the same information as far as such an application is 
concerned.)

Section 2.8:

It seems counter-intuitive to me that document that differ only in their 
comments are different in the sense you outline in section 1 -- to me, for 
most applications of XML, they would convey the same information.

Ah... I see you address this in section 3.  Hmmm... Now I'm beginning to 
wonder if a variable "cookbook recipe" like this is truly an 
_architectural_ finding (which comment should not be read as implying it is 
not useful).

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 08:01:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:28 GMT