W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > February 2004

RE: [DM] BEA_006

From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:40:08 -0800
Message-ID: <EB0A327048144442AFB15FCE18DC96C70214D224@RED-MSG-31.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Daniela Florescu" <danielaf@bea.com>, "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>

There are outside requirements to support XQuery on a document node that
may contain more than one element besides XSLT. The SQL-2003 XML
Datatype follows that model. 

Restricting a document node now would not satisfy their requirements
either.

Best regards
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniela Florescu
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 12:19 PM
> To: David Carlisle
> Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [DM] BEA_006
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> I am not sure I understand your answer.
> 
> Please let me concentrate on the issue that I think
> will cause more trouble for the future: relaxing the
> constraints associated with the document node.
> 
> According to this point I only see backwards compatibility issues,
> not real requirements (XSLT could very easily enforce that
> documents nodes have to obey Infoset rules).
> 
> With this respect we are in a dilemma: we are either
> backwards compatibility with XSLT 1.0 or in compatibility
> with XML itself and Infoset.
> 
> We did choose XSLT 1.0 and ignored XML itself and Infoset.
> 
> That's a strange choice, with unfortunate long term consequences.
> 
> Best regards,
> Dana
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 17, 2004, at 6:42 AM, David Carlisle wrote:
> 
> >
> >   What is the rationale for supporting functionality beyond
> >   the Infoset: e.g. documents with empty content, with multiple
> >   element children, etc ?
> >
> > As Michael Kay has said, backward compatibility concerns should mean
> > that removing this functionality is not even under consideration,
> > however this feature is not only there for backward compatibility.
It
> > is
> > a useful (and much used) feature. There is a requirement on XSLT
(and
> > any
> > reasonable XML transformation language) to be able to construct
> > external parsed entities as well as complete documents.
> > Xpath models these using the same model of a root node (Xpath 1)
> > (Document node in Xpath 2) but without the constraint that there
need
> > be
> > exactly one element child, and it similarly merges concepts of an
xml
> > declaration on a document and a text declaration on an external
parsed
> > entity, and models them both in the same way ie, doesn't  model them
at
> > all in the data model and generates them based on the same
parameters
> > to
> > the serialisation.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
_______________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
> > service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a
proactive
> > anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe,
visit:
> > http://www.star.net.uk
> >
_______________________________________________________________________
> > _
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 15:40:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:56:55 UTC