Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Aaron Skonnard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Xml-Dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 18:45:04 -0600
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 2:36 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Why the Infoset?
> I'd suggest that the 'whole idea of the Infoset' is effectively throwing
> out the baby with the bathwater, by discarding far too many details.
It seems to me that most of this debate is due to the fact that the Infoset
was developed *after* XML 1.0 + Namespaces. Had the order been reversed, I'm
not sure things would have turned out different but the critics may have
found it more acceptable.
While teaching XML courses, I've seen a number of companies using the
benefits of the Infoset to achieve higher-levels of interop, without the
data ever looking like XML 1.0 (e.g., the output of one system is a stream
of SAX-based calls that are rehydrated as a DOM tree on another system and
navigated using XPath, transformed using XSLT, etc.). As long as everyone
understands the same data model, we can achieve better interop - bottom
I'm not convinced that XML 1.0 + Namespaces will forever be the canonical
serialization format. It may not change any time soon but if this
possibility exists, I would rather see the Infoset err towards the abstract.
Nothing in Appendix C bothers me - placing to many serialization details in
the Infoset restricts future possibilities.