- From: Nico Verwer (Rakensi) <nverwer@rakensi.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 17:11:12 +0100
- To: public-ixml@w3.org
On 03-03-2025 14:50, Bethan Tovey-Walsh wrote: > This is definitely worth a discussion. We might, for example, decide that a conformant processor must make well-formed XML of some sort available, but needn't serialize it. I think there still needs to be XML of some sort, whether serialized or somehow represented in memory, since this allows us to have a canonical location for things like the "ixml:state" attribute, which informs users about ambiguous parses. But allowing serialization to take other forms seems an interesting possibility. That is a very interesting option for me. I am using MarkupBlitz, with my own serializer class, because I put the markup generated by ixml into an existing XML document. The input to the ixml parser comes from the same XML document, so the generated markup is merged back into it. I tend to think of serialization as a transformation into a textual representation. If a parser generates DOM, SAX, or its own XML representation, it is relatively easy to serialize from there, or do other things with it. I don't see how this could be easily added to a formal definition of ixml, though. I intend to be present tomorrow. Two weeks ago I was travelling in Serbia, and not near a PC with internet, but I forgot to declare myself absent. However, i won't be able to add much to the discussion, because I am working on 3 projects which each require 2-3 days per week. That leaves very little time for other things. Best regards, Nico
Received on Monday, 3 March 2025 16:11:21 UTC