- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:07:08 -0400
- To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Cc: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org>, public-qt-comments@w3.org
At 01:51 PM 6/5/2003 -0400, John Cowan wrote: >Jonathan Robie scripsit: > > > To a DTD-only processor, though, the xsi:type attribute will always be > just > > an attribute, and there's no place to put type information in the > output of > > a DTD-only processor, since it is just an Infoset. > >You write as if I were requesting an explanation of xpath-datamodel section >3.6, but I am not; I am requesting a change to it, so that Infoset-only >processing can provide datatype information by Schema-compatible means >without demanding Schema processing. I may have been unclear. I assumed that you understood that section, and are of course an expert on the Infoset. What I was trying to clarify was not the mapping itself, but the justification for that mapping - that we are trying to be literal and avoid creativity. To me, the Infoset-only mapping in our document needs to be consistent with the standard definition of XML. There are many ways we could decide to doctor an Infoset or reinterpret it, and I think this is a dangerous path to go down for mappings defined in our specifications. On the other hand, we give plenty of flexibility for an implementation to create data model instances without using our PSVI or Infoset mappings. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 14:07:19 UTC