Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- To: Rick JELLIFFE <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:17:45 -0400
At 02:14 AM 8/2/00 +0800, Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
>Can you give an example? By XML processing application, do you mean "an
>application that processes XML-encoded text" or "an application that
>processes the results of XML-parsing an instance"? The infoset only
>needs cover the latter.
Could you explain why you are so convinced that "The infoset only needs
cover the latter"?
I'm getting kind of dizzy here. You've objected rather violently to Common
XML and Minimal XML's subsetting of XML syntax, but you seem to insist on
the Infoset only providing an abstraction of just such a subset,
deliberately ignoring the rest.
The 'usual SML suspects', Sean and myself, both seem to be arguing that the
Infoset should be as inclusive as possible if it claims to represent XML 1.0.
I'm not sure that either of us is really contradicting ourselves, but it
does feel genuinely strange.
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books