Re: A thought about profiles

Liam R E Quin writes:

> I take it you are proposing introducing (formally, that is) and defining
> the term "infoset". But shouldn't that be done in the XML Information
> Set specification?

It already is defined there, this is just an _ad-hoc_ formalisation,
since I can't say what I want to say about profiles w/o one.

>> 
>>    We can define a *profile* (sc. for infosets) as a set of node labels N
>>    (which always contains at least Literal) and a set of edge labels E,
>>    and a *profiled infoset* P of an infoset I wrt such a profile as
>>    follows:
>
> Not sure what sc. is abbreviating here.

'scilicet' -- sorry, forget Dan Connolly's rule: "No Latin!".  So the
parenthesis should read "(understood as a profile _for infosets_)".

> "always contains at least one Literal"?

No -- N is a set of labels, and to simplify things I'm just treating
all leaf nodes, which are always literals in an infoset, as being
Literal Infoset Items, and my point here is that you aren't allowed to
leave such nodes _out_ of a profiled infoset.

> I submit that a useful answer to "what are profiles for" might be, "so
> that people who write or distribute XML software can describe their XML
> processors in a standard way - e.g. it does XInclude and RelaxNG but not
> XSD or DTD validation. But that doesn't make your definition
> inappropriate.

Indeed -- the Profiles spec. draft already says that.

ht
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 15:50:56 UTC