For purposes of discussion, suppose that you arbitrarily split sequence serialization from single-item serialization into non-XML formats because I believe they are actually qualitatively different problems. Referring only to the sequence serialization side of the problem here, I think the question is whether XML sequence serialization and parsing has to in fact be consumable by an XML parser. As I see it, you either end up specifying some arbitrary set of privileged xml sequence tags: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <xml:sequence xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"> <xml:item value="foo" type="xs:string"/> <xml:item value="5" type="xs:positiveInteger"/> <xml:item type="document"><bar><bat/></bar></xml:item> <xml:item type="comment">foo</xml:item> </xml:sequence> or you work with a direct serialization as described earlier, possibly with RDF encodings for type: (<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>,"foo",5^positiveInteger,<bar><bat/></bar>,<!-- foo -->) I agree those are two of the more obvious choices on the table, but using a negative word "arbitrary" to describe one, and a positive word "direct" to describe the other, seems to be prejudging which is a better fit to the requirements of the use cases, without actually stating any rationale. Regards, Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ http://twitter.com/michaelhkayReceived on Monday, 21 September 2009 07:57:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 September 2009 07:57:23 GMT