- From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:28:32 -0800
- To: "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
>> Liam sez I think the question is whether the parser must be capable of recognising nicely-formed µXML as such and marking it with some sort of Jolly Decent Actually (JDA) flag. <<< I believe the problem (that concerns me) is not the parser ... when we are talking data model, There is no necessity it came from a parser, let alone an uxml parser. Suppose I dynamically create a uxml data model instance from say Reflection of native objects, Or json , or a database ... whatever. As both a implementer of a data model API, and the user of such, to me it seems a disaster to not know the behavior of API's or expressions if the data model is allowed to contain things not in uxml. Certainly if I am using a custom API that exposes non-umxl thingies then sure, but if I am using an API that 'says' its uxml and 'says' its surfacing a uxml data model then I would really like it to not violate that contract. This is well and above the issue of what an error correcting parser does ... which is certainly an important issue. Maybe this is all moot ... because my argument (and worry) is all about names and definitions ... and the assumptions one makes if things are named such and such by the spec but seemingly (to me) paradoxically allowed to be something else which is not defined. But then this is a specification mailing list ... which IS all about names and definitions. -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml The barefoot programmer, http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 22:28:58 UTC