Re: To get things started.... Data formats

[Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo.gutentag@eng.sun.com>]

I agree with what Betty says below (except she probably meant & when talking
about entities, rather than $); and would like to add that no existing parser
(or any future conforming one) would be able to read the Processing Instruction 
you use <?ebxml Document, version#=1.0, encoding&="UTF-8"> and know that your intention
is to use UTF-8 as encoding -- that is not an xml declaration; xml declarations
start with the string "<?xml", not "<?ebxml". 

Let me put this another way: what you use looks suspiciously like XML, but it
isn't. Of course you can use whatever you wish for your own purposes, but please
be aware that it is a disservice to call it what it isn't, and present it to the
unwary as interchangeable and standard. 

One thing is extensibility; another, quite different, is disregarding the rules.

Eduardo


Betty Harvey wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 31 May 2001, David Lyon wrote:
> 
> > Betty,
> >
> > > The @ and the $ are not valid name characters in XML so they cannot
> > > be used in either element or attribute names.
> >
> > Yes they can. XML can be made to do anything you want with it. That's why
> > it's called "extensible", because it can be extended.
> 
> @ and $ are not valid 'name' characters according to the W3C XML
> specification and and ISO 8876, SGML standard (XML's parent standard).
> In SGML you could extend the characters allowed in elements and
> attributes by modifying the SGML declaration.  XML has a static
> declaration.  In SGML you could do things like $elementname$ by
> modifying the declaration.
> 
> SGML was extensible also but to cumbersome for the web.  Vendors
> had a very difficult time creating software to handle all the
> functionality and deviations allowed.  One of the goals of XML
> was to help developers the capability of developing interoperable
> code and to be used over the web.
> 
> These are the valid names according to the W3C specification:
> 
> [4]    NameChar    ::=    Letter | Digit | '.' | '-' | '_' | ':' |
> CombiningChar | Extender
> [5]    Name    ::=    (Letter | '_' | ':') (NameChar)*
> [6]    Names    ::=    Name (S Name)*
> [7]    Nmtoken    ::=    (NameChar)+
> [8]    Nmtokens    ::=    Nmtoken (S Nmtoken)*
> 
> >
> > It's a flexible technology that is able to adapt to modern business needs.
> 
> True!  It isn't flexible on the naming conventions of elements,
> attributes and entities which are the building blocks of XML (both
> DTD's and Schema's).
> 
> >
> > If you think the technology is static, then you should remember that in the
> > old days, people said that you couldn't sail too far out to sea or you'd
> > fall off the end of the earth.
> >
> 
> It may not be static but you still have to color within the lines!
> 
> > I do admit we are stretching the bounds of XML and make no apology for it.
> > Actually the '$', '@', '#', '?' specifiers don't form part of the element
> > name as you say they do. They simply denote the type of data that is stored
> > so that the values can be safely read and converted to a different data-type
> > if that is neccessary.
> 
> It is invalid and any valid parser will reject it which means that if
> you cannot go outside the bounds of your world so therefore you
> are making your XML non-extensible.
> 
> Standard tools will not work with non-standard XML.
> 
> There is a serious problem with using the '$'.  This signifys an
> entity within a dataflow.  Any parser who sees the $ will be
> looking for the closing delimiter ';', i.e., $myentity;.  If
> you have <date$> it is going to confuse the parser beyond
> belief.
> 
> >
> > Hence, Transaction_Amount can be expressed either as
> > Transaction_Amount&="34.56" (a string), or as Transaction_Amount$=34.56 (a
> > currency field). They're both talking about the same data element, which is
> > Transaction_Amount.
> >
> 
> See above!  Can I suggest that you pick up James Clarks SP parser at
> http://www.jclark.com and try running your code through it.  James
> makes the best parser known to man and if it fails his parser it
> isn't valid.
> 
> If you don't want to download his parser, it is a little hard to
> understand, then just try running some of your code in IE 5.0.
> IE 5.0 has a conforming and a validating parser.  If you don't
> reference the DTD then it is a conforming parser.
> 
> > Thanks for your comments in any case.
> >
> 
> Your welcome
> 
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> Betty Harvey                         | Phone: 410-787-9200 FAX: 9830
> Electronic Commerce Connection, Inc. |
> harvey@eccnet.com                    | Washington,DC SGML/XML Users Grp
> URL:  http://www.eccnet.com          | http://www.eccnet.com/xmlug/
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo@eng.Sun.COM
XML Technology Center          |         Phone:  (650) 786-5498
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         fax:    (650) 786-5727