W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2007

RE: New draft of Elaborated Infosets document (xmlFunctions-34)

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:49:10 +0000
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C60FBCEE272B@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Henry,

In [2] is states:

        The default processing model question can be rephrased as
        "Is there an infoset other than the one produced by a
         conformant XML parser which can and should be defined?"

The embedded question implies that the *is* a (specified?) infoset that a "conformant XML" parser will produce (presumably from a given XML document).

Is there such a specification of the infoset produced by a "conformant" XML parser? If so, a reference would be helpful.

I suspect that there isn't otherwise I'd suspect that of itself that would be the answer to the default processing model question - that's certainly the answer I'd go for say wrt GRDDL - by defn it's something that ALL conformant XML parsers could produce.

Thanks.

Stuart
--
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/elabInfoset/

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Henry S. Thompson
> Sent: 27 November 2007 21:17
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: New draft of Elaborated Infosets document (xmlFunctions-34)
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Further to discussion at the March 2007 f2f [1]. I've
> produced a new draft of _The elaborated infoset: A proposal_ [2].
>
> As several editorial notes therein suggest, I'm not at all
> sure how to integrate this into Web Architecture.  There are
> at least two (partially interdependent) questions this draft
> doesn't answer:
>
> 1) What is the role of the application in controlling the elaboration
>    process?
>
> 2) What is the right model for the relationship between elaboration,
>    understood as the specification/construction of an infoset, and
>    application semantics, particularly in the case of mixed namespace
>    documents?
>
> To illustrate the reason (1) is important, consider a bank
> transfer document, expressed in XML, and three XML applications:
>
>  a) An XML editor;
>  b) An XML validator (pick your favourite schema language);
>  c) An XML banking application.
>
> The editor probably wants the document _as is_, without  any
> elaboration.  The validator probably wants as much
> elaboration as possible (but really that's up to the user).
> The banking application may want some but not all of the
> document to be elaborated:  consider the case where its own
> banking markup semantics includes some form of encapsulation.
>  So the document can't be said to have _an_ elaborated
> infoset:  elaboration is in part controlled/parameterised by
> what the user of the document is _doing_ with it.
>
> The issue behind (2) is discussed at some length in Tim
> Berners-Lee's original thinking on this topic, as expressed
> in [3], particularly the sections entitled "Top-down
> Processing model" and "Software designs for top-down
> processing".  The granularity of the implied interaction in
> that discussion is much finer than that in the draft
> elaboration proposal.  It's not clear to me that a notion of
> elaborated _infoset_, as opposed to elaborated _infoitem_,
> has any utility if, for example, the possibility of embedding
> a fragment in language B inside a document in language B,
> where A and B have different requirements for quoting vs. elaboration.
>
> The interaction between the two questions arises as follows:
> are there actually any generic XML _applications_, that is,
> applications which process XML as XML, independently of its
> vocabulary-specific semantics, for which a
> non-application-specific notion of whole-document elaboration
> makes sense?  Possible candidates include validation and
> style/query processing.  The hard case for this that emerged
> in the f2f discussion [1] is that of a vocabulary-specific
> conditional construct with an XInclude inside a guarded
> branch, where the included material is a very large
> multimedia document access to which involves real cost to the user.
>
> This message is an invitation to open up discussion, since
> answers evidently are not being offered. . .
>
> ht
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/03/06-minutes#item10
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/elabInfoset/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XML
> - --
>  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group,
> University of Edinburgh
>                      Half-time member of W3C Team
>     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44)
> 131 650-4440
>             Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>                    URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail
> really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is
> forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFHTIlrkjnJixAXWBoRAhJtAJ9cqr2FtTOP0kClHglphAZilka9HACcCLRM
> 84HZ9zwfdEuwwS0VlhipGCE=
> =ERR6
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2007 16:54:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:51 GMT