[At 20:56 31/07/00 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:]
> 
> Suppose this: we define a 100% complete abstract model of an XML 1.0, and
> XML Namespace compliant document, and also define a mechanism for defining
> subsets of such an abstract model. Sort of the opposite of base class
> inheritance where sub classes gain properties, we define a pruning mechanism
> to eliminate certain properties from subsets of the base information set. In
> this scenario, the current XML Information Set would be derived from the
> full fidelity  Base XML Information Set.

Count me in.

This is the sort of "partical physics" I think we need
beneath XML 1.

Otherwise we are forever doomed to pulling out hair out as
XML editors/databases etc. etc. make infuriating tranformations
behind our backs in syntactic areas they consider "insignificant".

XFM only scratches the surface of this and I would love to
see it teased out and formalized.

It would be great if prunes of MOAI (Mother of All Infosets)
could be allocated names. Then I can walk up to a vendor
and say "does your tool read/write XXXX infoset?".

regards,
Sean


http://www.pyxie.org - an Open Source XML Processing library for Python