Subject: RE: Grand Unification Theory (XSL/XPointer) From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:40:56 -0400 |
HI Micah, <Comment> I may be idealistic, but I think if enough people constructively speak up, it can make a difference. Some possible discussion points are: * What are some useful examples/suggestions on unifying these two specs? * What specific bad things might happen if the specs remain separate? * What specific concrete needs are there, today, for unification? </Comment> <Reply> Thank you Micah, you said the right thing so I don't feel like Don quichote again :-) Like James Tauber said earlier, XSL target is class name space processing and XPOinter target is instance name space processing. However, both deal with hierarchies. I remember a long debate we got at IETF about URNs and "/". We ended with the conclusion that "/" is reserved for hierarchies. So, the first thing that could be worked toward a reunification is to have the same delimiter for hierarchies. This reduce the parsing complexities for name space processing. So, the first area I would explore is: Is it possible to use the same delimiter type for both name space contexts? either a "." or a "/" but preferably a "/" because of the popular usage of this kind of delimiter for context delimitation. A) first goal: see if both name space contexts could be expressed with the same delimitation convention (i.e uses "/") b) second goal: integrate instance reference to class reference with the addition of indexes. So With goal A) I would have: match="element1/element2" that would match with all classes instantiations. and we would have match="element1/element2(1)" for a particular element. From a knowledge management point of view. A user can start its learning process either through XSL or through linking documents. The learner could then re-use the knowledge to the other field. The class and the instance could be deduced one from the other.Here how: a) We are used to "/" delimiters to express hierarchies not necessarily classes or instances but hierarchical name space contexts. A particular HTTP server fulfilling this request could be a hierarchical file system or a ODB (a la Excelon). So, simply by usage, we are used to "/" delimiters to express hierarchies. In the Win32 world this is a mix of either "\" or "/". So intuitively, using "/" means a hierarchical context. b)To go from class to instance is intuitive and scale from the previous notation by the simple addition or omission of indexes. For example, "element1/element2" is not precise enough to tell us which element it is. But "element1/element2(1)" is precise enough to tell us that this is the first element2 in this collection. What we gained however is scalability of the expression. we can move from the class to the instance and still keep the following information a) both deal with hierarchies, b) We can deduce the instance notation from the class notation by adding indexes. In both world, we would share the same name space and the underlying structure (i.e. name space) could percolate from either a document or a XSL script. We would in fact have the same structure either from the conceptual point of view but mostly this model expressed with the same notation. Thus, the XML developer or XML user would see this as a single world instead of the assembly of small kingdoms with their own languages and customs. </reply> regards Didier PH Martin mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.netfolder.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Grand Unification Theory (XSL/XPoin, Micah Dubinko | Thread | Re: Grand Unification Theory (XSL/X, Duane Nickull |
Re: moving source text around, Richard Lander | Date | RE: XPDL (was Re: XML is broken), Eduardo Gutentag |
Month |