Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck)

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:

> Perhaps the Infoset should define what level of XML processing it
> represents, and provide enough information (like base URI of elements
> pulled from external entities) for layers above that to do their own work.

It excludes documents that use ":" in names in ways that violate Namespaces.
So a document like "<FOO::bar>this is bogus</FOO::bar>",
though it is well-formed XML 1.0, there is no Infoset for it.
 
> Right now, it appears to represent post-DTD parser output with some level
> of namespace awareness.  It doesn't specify much about processing, however,
> seeming to think that its representation of document structures is somehow
> independent of such processing.

We had earlier drafts that knew all about processing, and determined that
the model was untenable.  Now we have only one Infoset per document,
representing all its parts, and allow Infoset-compliant programs to
return any subset of the Infoset they want as long as the subset is
well documented.

> (And non-validating parsers and validating parsers seem capable of
> legitimately returning different Infoset information from the same document
> - something acknowledged in 2.5, but which feels pretty odd otherwise.)

They can't return *conflicting* information.  In any case they must
return a subset of *the* infoset for the document.  (The exception is
reference-to-skipped-entity information items, which don't appear in
*the* infoset.)

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

Received on Friday, 2 June 2000 12:22:49 UTC