OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - Final ReviewDraft

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
  • To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>,"xml-dev@xml.org" <xml-dev@xml.org>
  • Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:53:17 -0400

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:

> I'd suggest that the W3C is trying to have it both ways - they won't subset
> XML, but heck, they'll subset the Infoset instead!

Sure looks that way.
> I'd suggest that's pretty arbitrary, and that your use of '74 whitespace
> properties' is basically a barricade to keep out any of the rest of the
> items in Appendix C.

Naah, I'm not that clever.  Lazy, maybe.
> You arbitrarily ruled it out of scope, the DOM folks arbitrarily ruled it
> out of scope, and now we have a lot of XML features that applications just
> plain can't get at easily.

There were no DTD parsers for far too long, so nobody really thought about
DTD models.  With the Wutka model, that has changed.

> And how exactly did base URIs creep back into scope, while DTD dropped?  I
> can't find 'base URI' anywhere in the XML 1.0 spec.  Just curious on that
> one.  (Schemas aren't in either XML 1.0 or namespaces, so I'm much less
> inclined to dispute that boundary.)

In order to understand URI references within documents, you need to know
the base URI in effect at the point where the URI reference appears.

> What I'm saying here is that 'best we can figure it' appears to be a purely
> political decision that has some significant consequences.

*shrug*.  It may look political to you.  To me, it looks like "what DOM and
SAX do, plus a little bit."
> I'd suggest that it's better to drop that decision making - and drop the
> Infoset entirely - than to continue the current approach.  Sorry for all
> the blood you've sweated, but that's what I feel quite strongly.

Feel free to urge the W3C not to issue an Infoset at this time, but don't
expect to get listened to.  That does not mean that *I* am not listening,
or even that the WG is not listening.  But even if we all resigned in a body,
*somebody* at the W3C would make sure *an* Infoset existed.


Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.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)


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS