Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Whitmer" <rayw@netscape.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle


> Martin Gudgin wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Ray Whitmer" <rayw@netscape.com>
> >To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:47 PM
> >Subject: Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle
> >
> >
> ><SNIP/>
> >
> >>Actually, some places you need to know a namespace binding are clear,
> >>and others are not.  I am not sure that it is ever clear that you need
> >>xml:base.  Especially not at the raw infoset level.
> >>
> >
> >Actually the infoset carries a base URI property for Document, Element
and
> >Processing Instruction Information Items. So xml:base would modify the
> >infoset.
> >
> >Gudge
> >
> ><SNIP/>
> >
> Yes, obviously it does modify the infoset, and I didn't claim otherwise.
>  encodingStyle also modifies the infoset.

Only in that it is itself an Attribute Information Item

> You could also trivially
> produce an expanded infoset with an encodingStyle value on every node,
> as is done with xml:base.

Yes, but [base URI] is actually an infoset property ( and may for some
infosets not be the value of an xml:base attribute )

> But it still says nothing about what effect,
> if any, setting xml:base has on the interpretation of particular values
> or nodes,
> just like encodingStyle may affect the interpretation of
> values but there is no obvious interpretation of where it applies and
> where it does not.
> The application probably decides that ultimately for
> both.
> xml:base does not automatically apply, modifying the infoset,
> just because there happen to be URIs in content.  The same content may
> be interpreted in different ways by different applications.
>
> This is the same with namespaces.  You do not really know which content
> happens to have qnames in it that will rely on the declaration for
> interpretation.  For this reason, it does not directly affect the
> infoset of such since that can only be determined by applying a schema
> or other processing, as with the use of an encoding.

Agreed. The interpretation of attribute values and element content is at a
higher level than the infoset. And interpretation of any given value in the
infoset may be determined by the some other value in the infoset.

I think I've lost track of where we're going with this...

Gudge

Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 22:13:05 UTC