- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:52:08 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM> writes: > I don't see why the comparison function should be doing validity > checking. You have an infoset. An infoset is a bag of properties. I > don't care where you got it from or how you constructed it. I absolutely agree -- you misunderstood one aspect of my email, see below. > | I hope that's not the answer, in which case I'd be interested not only > | in a specific explanation of why the [in-scope namespaces] EII > | property was not included, but also in the more general question of > | the implicit suggestion above that "Everyone knows what 'well-formed' > | means when applied to infosets" and "It doesn't make sense to define > | equivalence such that a well-formed infoset can be equivalent to a > | non-well-formed infoset." > > I hope my explanation above goes some way to expressing how I feel > about the answer to those questions. Not really -- you haven't explained why it's OK for two infosets to be equivalent despite one being 'well-formed' and the other not -- I like to think of members of equivalence classes as being inter-substitable for most important purposes, and serialisability is pretty important. . . This is _not_ to say that the equivalence test should check some definition of well-formedness, but rather that all (most) information item properties on which well-formedness depends should be included in the domain of the equivalence test. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, 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 really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 18:52:13 UTC