RE: [DM] IBM-DM-105: Order of comments, PI's and text given [schema normalized value] property

I don't think that corrupting the user's data in order to achieve better
performance is ever acceptable.

Michael Kay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Rys [mailto:mrys@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: 18 February 2004 09:03
> To: Michael Kay; public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [DM] IBM-DM-105: Order of comments, PI's and 
> text given [schema normalized value] property
> 
> 
> If you provide data-centric application the ability to fold 
> their value (and thus provide better performance) then this 
> is one of the consequences. And I think this is an acceptable 
> trade-off...
> 
> Best regards
> Michael
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments- 
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Kay
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 12:23 AM
> > To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: [DM] IBM-DM-105: Order of comments, PI's and 
> text given 
> > [schema normalized value] property
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > Section 6.2.4
> > >
> > > The description of how the children property of the 
> element node is 
> > > constructed from PSVI indicates that if the [schema normalized
> value]
> > > property exists, and the processor chooses to use that means of 
> > > setting the property, the order of nodes in the sequence is 
> > > implementation defined.
> > >
> > > This should be phrased to indicate that only the text 
> node will be 
> > > in some implementation-dependent position relative to the PI and
> > > comment children,
> > > but the order of the PI's and comments themselves is the same
> > > as in the
> > > [children] property.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > I personally find this reordering of comment nodes abhorrent.
> > 
> > Changing
> > 
> > <a>1.2 8.9 3.56 <!-- or 3.57? --> 8.3</a>
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > <a>1.2 8.9 3.56 8.3 <!-- or 3.57? --></a>
> > 
> > is a gross violation of data integrity and we should not 
> sanction it.
> > 
> > Michael Kay
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 05:06:13 UTC