- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:54:24 -0500
- To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 14:24 -0500, Grosso, Paul wrote: > > Suggest recasting the sentence as > > [[ > > XML applications are often defined by building on definitions of the > > output of an XML processor, for example via the XDM [XQuery 1.0 and > > XPath 2.0 Data Model (XDM)]. > > ]] > > I can't agree to this. > > The processor profiles draft was built on top of the Infoset. > Perhaps we don't have to say "data model" (though I'm not even > sure I agree with that point) but it was not built on top of > the xpath data model, it was built on Infoset, and it's the > Infoset terminology it continues to use throughout the spec. I'm happy with keeping infoset there actually, just not with calling infoset a data model. An alternative, though, might be to consider revising the Infoset spec to add text licensing the use of "data model", and say what it would mean for software (or a spec) to conform to the Infoset as a data model. I don't think it would need a whole lot of text. (my suggested change was not to add XDM, which was there already, but to take infoset out only of that particular sentence about data models in the background section; the spec at hand is supposed to be correcting th problem the happens when people say, "you take an infoset" (Norm's fridge, for example...) Possibly the sentence should also refer to DOM. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 19:54:27 UTC