Thoughts on follow.

Section 1. the default model

'before any application-specific processing'  Well, it maybe that the 
top-down elaboration is in fact layers of standard and app-specific 
processing.  For example, there may be in include which includes an 
element which means to translate into French which includes a an 
encrypted element which includes an element which means to return the 
current whether for a given city, which includes ...and so on.

The top-down elaboration model is general, and has to be the interface 
between different systems.

Sect. 2.  The infoset

"The default processing model question can be rephrased as "Is there an 
infoset other than the one produced by a conformant XML parser which can 
and should be defined?""

It can ... if everything has to be an infoset. of course lots of related 
infosets can be defined.
What we are looking for is something the tag has been groping for along 
the  lines of the intent of the message.

Sect 3.  "Generic operations and the elaborated infoset"

> "The inventory of such 'generic' applications is small, and 
> identifying its membership correctly is likely to be one of the hard 
> parts of this project, but here are three candidates:
> XInclude
> XML Encryption
> XML Signature"
Actually I don't see that signature is a good example, but I think XSLT 
in the mode where the template document contais xslt bits is a very good 

See"XSLT Literal Result Element as Stylesheet (LRES)" in

The set of namespaces whcih can do a syntactic elaboration is extensible 
surely.  People may define dtheir own lcoal ones.

4. Elaboration defined

Doesn't entity resolution have to mesh with this (if  consider it at all?)

5.2 Quoting

By "Accordingly, we define as an 
elaborating namespace,"  do you mean, "For example, we could define to be a quoting namespace?"  Not sure I 
follow.  An eleborating ns would return a graph which woudl then be 
elaborated again, I thought.


Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 21:40:58 UTC