W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: XML Infoset Comment Resolution: issue-query-*

From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 09:42:51 -0800
Message-ID: <EC67B042372C27429014D4FB06AC9FAF0247844A@red-msg-29.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "XML Infoset Comments" <www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "Paul Cotton" <pcotton@microsoft.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Dear members of the Core WG

Thanks you very much for reviewing all the comments. In addition to the
comments sent to you from the Query WG, I personally have the following
additional questions and comments. Again, please apologize the late
submission, but my email synchronization was not working for some
reason.

Issue query-2 
[in-scope namespaces] should only contain "newly-defined" namespaces.
Origin: mrys@microsoft.com: origin
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-infoset-comments/2001JanMar
/0071.html> 
Core group discussions (MEMBER ONLY): reference
<http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/03/xml-f2f-minutes> 

Response:
This would make it harder to cut-and-paste elements between documents
(as in XInclude for example) keeping their namespaces intact.
Furthermore, our model matches XPath's. Note that since there is no
parent property, no distinctness of items is implied. 

Comment: I do not see the problem when performing cut-and-paste of
elements. Every element has it's own namespace associated to itself.
Thus any move will preserve the namespace. On the contrary, I believe
that having all in-scope namespaces associated with an element
information item will make XInclude or an update language much harder
to implement, since now all in-scope namespaces have to be recomputed
for the infoset, whereas if only the newly-defined namespaces are
provided, then it is left to a processor to perform the transitive
closure. I would like to ask  the working group to reconsider this
decision under the light that one should only provide the minimally
necessary information and leave it to the infoset processors to
provide internally such materialized views of the transitive closure.

For example:

Given is
<a:A xmlns:a="uri1" xmlns:b="uri2">
   <b:B>
      <c:C xmlns:c="uri3"/>
   </b:B>
</a:A>

<a:D xmlns:a="uri4">
  <e:E xmlns:e="uri5"/>
</a:D>

And we want to move/copy b:B underneath <a:D> and make <e:E> a new child
for c:C. With the current infoset, the inscope namespaces of b:B and c:C
in the old document are (uri1, uri2) and (uri1, uri2, uri3)
respectively. For a:D and e:E they are
(uri4) and (uri4, uri5) respectively. After the move they are:

b:B: (uri4, uri2)
c:C: (uri4, uri2, uri3)
a:D: (uri4)
e:E: (uri4, uri2, uri3, uri5)

In the local only approach, only the fixup of for the element's own
namespace declaration may need to be performed:

b:B: old: () new: (uri2)
c:C: old: (uri3) new: (uri3)
a:D: old: (uri4) new: (uri4)
e:E: old: (uri5) new: (uri5)



Thanks and best regards
Michael 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: XML Infoset Comments [mailto:www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:11 AM
> To: Michael Rys
> Cc: pgrosso@arbortext.com; lehors@us.ibm.com
> Subject: XML Infoset Comment Resolution: issue-query-*
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> Thank you for your comment(s) [1] on the XML Infoset Last Call WD [2].
> 
> The XML Core WG has processed all Last Call comments and produced a
> Dispostion of Comments (DoC) document [3] and a new interim draft [4] 
> that reflects our dispositions.  We hope to request that this 
> new draft
> (possibly with minor changes) be promoted to a Candidate 
> Recommendation
> (CR) within the next week or two.  At this time, we are asking you to 
> review how your comments were resolved and to let us know if 
> you accept 
> our resolution or wish to register an objection to our 
> advancing to CR. 
> 
> Your comment(s) and resolution can be found in the DoC starting at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/03/infoset-disposition#issue-query-1a
> 
> Please Reply to this message with your response as soon as possible.
> If we have no response by March 24th, we will assume you have no
> objection to our advancing to CR.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Paul Grosso, Arnaud Le Hors
> XML Core WG Co-chairs
> 
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-infoset-comments/2
001JanMar/0071
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xml-infoset-20010202/
[3] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/03/infoset-disposition
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xml-infoset-20010316/
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2001 13:03:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:08:00 UTC