Re: XPath Data Model proposal

Jonathan Robie scripsit:

> 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.

Well, if I understand Norm correctly, xsi:nil is to be interpreted in
Infoset-only processing in any event, and it doesn't seem to me too much
of a stretch to require the interpretation of xsi:type as well.  These
attributes are nicely Schema-compatible and aren't likely to be used in
the incoming XML for any other purpose, and they do provide rough parity
between Schemaful and Schemaless processing that does not currently exist.
xdt:attributeTypes *is* more of a stretch, but adding it provides completeness
at small cost if xsi:type is in.

IOW, I don't think the slope is all that slippery.

> On the other hand, we give plenty of flexibility for an implementation to 
> create data model instances without using our PSVI or Infoset mappings.

I acknowledge that, but I want something that implementations will provide,
by making it a standard part of XPath processing, rather than something an
idiosyncratic implementation might provide.

-- 
A poetical purist named Cowan           [that's me: jcowan@reutershealth.com]
Once put the rest of us dowan.          [on xml-dev]
    "Your verse would be sweeter        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    If it only had metre                http://www.reutershealth.com
And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan."     [overpacked line!] --Michael Kay

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 14:35:50 UTC