[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:17:17 -0400
At 08:56 PM 7/31/00 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>You correctly complain that the Infoset is only a partial abstraction of
>XML.
>
>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.
I'd support that as well. While I'm not certain that the abstraction layer
provided by the Infoset is necesary, I'd much rather that the abstraction
layer be as complete as possible if there is to be one.
Subsets would be completely acceptable once 'full-fidelity' was attained.
Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
