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

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

From: David A. Lee <dlee@calldei.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:09:11 -0400
Message-ID: <4AB75ED7.3070400@calldei.com>
To: Philippe Poulard <philippe.poulard@sophia.inria.fr>
CC: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, rjelliffe@allette.com.au, xml-dev@lists.xml.org, XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>

Philippe Poulard wrote:
> Hi,
> Kurt Cagle a écrit :
>> (<?xml version="1.0" 
>> encoding="UTF-8"?>,"foo",5^positiveInteger,<bar><bat/></bar>,<!-- foo 
>> -->)
> Why not writing it directly as a native XQuery sequence ?
> ("foo",xs:positiveInteger(5),<bar><bat/></bar>,<!-- foo -->)
1) it requires an xquery parser to read it ( against use case 4)
2) It is not canonical (use case 6)  although the serialized form would 
be canonical

But yes if one were to use a non-XML format for this, the xquery format 
would be usable one,  and I'd rather see    "xs:positiveInteger(5)" then 
because it is directly parsable by xquery - if only xquery had an eval 
function :)

Overall, I would summarize the comments as

1) A new serialization format for XDM would be useful (no dissenting 
2) A 'pure XML' wrapper style XML format would work  well and is 
suggested by many
3) Several 'non XML' formats have been suggested with various stylistic 
improvements (namely conciseness) over XML but  no technical advantages 
4) Suggestions  of *multiple* optional formats have been suggested, of 
which I think (IMHO) the XQuery format is the best contender.

But I shall start with just an XML format (first, hold your breath!) and 
see if I can get some holes poked in that before continueing.
Thank you all for your comments !  I hope to get more when I pass the 
next milestone.


David A. Lee
Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 11:10:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:03:05 UTC