W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > September 2009

RE: [xml-dev] Serialization of XDM - Use cases / Proposal

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 08:56:30 +0100
To: "'Kurt Cagle'" <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
Cc: <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>, <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, "'XProc Dev'" <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <724D6BC313564047A53133A654F3303B@Sealion>

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/michaelhkay 

 
 
 
 
Received 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