[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, "xml-dev@xml.org" <xml-dev@xml.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:38:49 -0400
At 07:15 PM 7/31/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
>
>> In the case of the Infoset, I find the reductionism distressing. Although
>> the specification certain acknowledges that something is lost, it also
>> describes itself as:
>>
>> >a description of the information available in a well-formed XML document
>> [XML].
>>
>> That's fine - except that the Infoset is the only 'canonical' description
>> available, and a large chunk of information is excluded from the Infoset,
>> presumably never to return.
>
>Entity information is available. Character references are lost, it is true.
>If you want them back, shout now.
Sure! I also want DTDs back, and everything else available from the
original XML document. Anything else lost?
Then you can go ahead and subset that all you like to define a core that
you find pleasing.
Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
