- From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:10:58 +0200
- To: <www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org>
Just read [1] (enjoyed it too ;-). Some questions: 1) Section [1] > "Namespaces" says "this specification does not define an information set for documents which use relative URI references in namespace declarations". Why was this adopted while base URIs can be relative? (just looking why and how relative [base URI]s can be useful and *not* why the REC does not handle documents with relative namespace URIs). 2) Does the REC favor the use of the "Unknown" property value to mark fragments that may need further processing to produce information items (or extensions to those) and how should these fragments be marked/recognized? Would an implementation break the REC if it used namespace declarations to spot "roots" in the documents and process those fragments having a [document element] for each one? 3) According to [3] and [4] and the whole inconsistencies issue with synthetic infosets, why did the WG favored this to be resolved in "proprietary" way in each implementation? From what I understand it would be of greater use and simplicity to include a mechanism in the spec that will resolve the issue (can't this actually be done by extending the infoset and documenting the relevant information items?) instead of telling each implementation to describe the inconsistencies internally. Since the Infoset is abstract by nature and it even includes something like the [all declarations processed] property, it can expand to (for example) hold references (just by using properties on the [document element]) to namespaces that should be in scope but are not due to a synthesis. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#intro [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#intro.synthetic [4 http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#conformance Kindest regards, Manos
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 07:08:23 UTC