Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:00:29 -0400
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> I have no objects to subsetting XML. I do have objections to subsetting
> the abstract representation of XML without subsetting XML itself.
Simon, you can't have it both ways.
Either the Infoset is a subset of the full information available in the
text of an XML document, or it isn't. If it is a subset, then someone has
to choose the subset. If it isn't, then it has to provide the full information
for reconstruction, including the 74 different whitespace properties. Which
you say you don't care about (and rightly so IMHO).
One sticking point seems to be DTDs. If we did DTDs, we'd have to do
Schemas too, and that seemed like too big a job (plus the Schema WG is
changing things all the time as well). So we arbitrarily ruled metainformation
(except for base URIs) out of scope.
> Is the Infoset about XML 1.0+Namespaces, or is it about something else?
It's about what's meaningful in XML 1.0+Namespaces, as best we can figure it.
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <email@example.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)