[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Michael Champion <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>
- To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:10:45 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>
To: "XMLDev list" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: Why the Infoset?
> For example, the XML
> spec says that "<empty></empty>" and "<empty/>" are both well formed XML
> elements, but nothing about whether they are equivalent. Infoset says (or
> at least the previous draft did) that they are. Likewise, as was pointed
> out earlier, InfoSet says that certain well-formed XML elements such as
> "<ns::foo>blah</ns::foo>" do NOT have an unambiguous internal
> representation. Without the InfoSet, it would be unclear if this is an
> element named "foo" with a namespace prefix "ns", an element "foo" with a
> prefix "ns:", or an element named "ns::foo".
Sorry, this is unclear. I should have said, without the Infoset, we could
argue about which was correct ... but the InfoSet says that there is no
correct answer, because this "non namespace well-formed" document can't be
represented in the InfoSet.
|
