RE: XPath Data Model proposal

No. xsi:nil is not specially handled by the infoset processor. 

I think any attempt to have xsi: attributes creep into well-formed
document should not be done and not be driven by the XQuery/XPath
datamodel. If we are not allowed to remove stuff from the infoset after
validation, we should not start changing the meaning of well-formed XML.

I think this slope is so slippery that I think everyone that goes that
path will break his neck.

Best regards
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:38 AM
> To: Jonathan Robie
> Cc: Norman Walsh; Mike Champion; public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: 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 15:41:45 UTC