- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:52:58 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Last week I was asking whether CSS and XPath needed to be revised to accomodate xml:id, and Norm pointed out that XPath was defined in terms of the infoset datamodel, not serialized XML, so it was, in a way, orthogonal. I pointed out that this doesn't help with interoperability. Noah said he could see both sides... [[ NM: I think both views of this are right, there is a case to be said that the infoset way is architecturally better ... OTOH, Dan is right as well and we need to provide [details missing] ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/04/19-minutes#item05 I think the [details missing] was something about interoperability at the bytes-on-the-wire level. I just happened to be looking at how URIs interact with XML specifications, and I discovered (rediscovered?) that XML Schema has conformance clauses at three levels: (1) the component level, where even the infoset representation of a schema is abstracted away (2) "conformance to the XML Representation of Schemas" which is actually at the infoset level plus another that we didn't get into in the teleconference: (3) it has an explicit conformance clause for processors that aren't running on some disconnected LAN that has its own DNS root, but have access to to the captial-I Internet. Interesting stuff. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#concepts-conformance I think the lack of a conformance level that ties the bytes-on-the-wire to the infoset is less than ideal, since I think that's what a lot of people rely on in practice. But I found the stuff that's there pretty interesting. Hmm... the 3rd "fully conforming" level talks about MIME types... that hints pretty strongly at bytes-on-the-wire level interop. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 22 April 2005 20:53:01 UTC