W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > December 2002

RE: FW: XML Query WG Feedback on Sept WD of Namespaces in XML 1 .1

From: Kay, Michael <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:27:16 +0100
Message-ID: <DFF2AC9E3583D511A21F0008C7E621060453DE75@daemsg02.software-ag.de>
To: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, mrys@microsoft.com
Cc: pgrosso@arbortext.com, Michael.Kay@softwareag.com, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org, w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org, xml-names-editor@w3.org

> > > 1. XML 1.1 describes a true superset of XML 1.0
> > 
> > The set of possible XML 1.1 documents is not quite a 
> superset of the 
> > set of XML 1.0 documents, but the differences are lexical and don't 
> > show through at the Infoset level.
> 
> Am I right in thinking that Michael Rys wants it to be a 
> superset so that one can always serialize a 1.0 or 1.1 
> infoset as 1.1?  Rather than having to look at the infoset to 
> see what it can be serialized as?
> 

It's not just a serialization issue. We need to define the semantics of
validation when applied to a Document object in the XPath data model. We do
this by converting our Document object to an Infoset, and invoking schema
processing on the Infoset to create a PSVI. If the Infoset uses some of the
new Name characters in an ID value, this is going to need a schema processor
that validates according to 1.1 rules. That's fine if we can always invoke a
schema processor that handles 1.1. If we sometimes have to invoke a 1.0
schema processor, because we've got an infoset that's valid in XML 1.0 but
not in XML 1.1, then we are really introducing complexities that we could do
without.

Michael Kay
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 07:27:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:43 GMT