On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Ralph Hartley wrote:
> [...]
> http://www.xml.com/axml/testaxml.htm
> that says that an XML processor must hand them over in any particular
> order. Considering the density of that document, I could have missed
> something, in which case please point it out.
You might check the SGML specs.
You are making a claim that would violate the assumptions of many
official specifications, and are flat out bizarre.
I think the burden of proof is on your side.
> Is that document not the whole XML spec?
It is by design a subset of SGML, so you'd expect that the rules for
SGML apply.
> It doesn't mention the "DOM",
> and the behavior of particular implementations (SAX parsers) is not part
> of a standard unless the standard says so.
The DOM *IS* an official recomdation of W3.
(SAX is not)
> > The standards that depend on XML (such as Xpointer and XSL) depend
> > on the file being presented in order.
>
> Do they depend on an undocumented feature?
In other words, the entire XML development community is wrong,
and you are right?
> > There are statments about order all over relevant standards.
>
> But none (on this point) in the XML standard, that I can find. I have to
> admit to being a little perplexed.
Show me a statement in the standared that says you have any right
to reorder the file when presenting it.
> > What "possible transformations" are you talking about?
> > (The XML standard talks about the format of a file, not about
> > what you want to do with it... I'm not sure I see why you
> > would expect it to talk about transformations of the file
> > to begin with, much less allow any.)
>
> Just so. There is more to a data format that it's syntax.
No, that's all there is to a data format.
> The XML
> standard doesn't talk about the semantics of a file at all. And that is
> what I am talking about now. The XML spec DOES allow arbitrary
> transformations, because "it places no constraints on the application"
> (http://www.xml.com/axml/notes/AppIsFree.html).
Get real. It makes not constraints on what the application choses
to do with the file. It does not, therefore, mean that parsers may
do arbitrary things before presenting it to applications.
(I've commented on this distinction before.)
> The problem I am trying to grapple with here, is that in order to be
> acceptable to sufficiently many users, CaveXML must allow the same data
> to be expressed in different ways.
I don't argue with that.
I think you keep making statements about how CaveXML should be
intrepreted, but making them about XML instead.
> There are so many combinations of
> usages possible in even the simplest of our proposals, that it may be
> difficult for a simple program to understand what a file is supposed to
> mean (even though the file has been parsed already).
> As well as a DTD or schema, we need an unambiguous description of what
> each construct means.
I agree with this.
> [...]
I'll ask again... have you really done anything with XML, or are
you just making points based on a theoretical understanding?
> This is still a bit loosely defined. I know XSLT is a standard for
> defining transformations, but I don't know how it works, and have
> negative time available to find out.
> >> Let me amend that to "The order of SOME elements is not significant".
> >
> > The oder is always significant. Period.
> Something is significant if we decide that it is. Significance is a
> semantic term, as such it is not part of XML.
No, something is significant in CaveXML if we decide it is.
Order is significant in XML, regardless of what we decide.
> > Maybe you are just using different terminology than I am.
>
> I must be.
Thank you.
> [...]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 18:00:01 CEST