Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Richard Lanyon <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 10:38:12 +0100 (BST)
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> At 04:58 PM 8/3/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> >The Infoset *does* define abstractions for XML. It doesn't define
> >every possible abstraction for XML.
> More to the point, it doesn't define abstractions for all of XML, leaving
> them as 'fix in documentation' for those who need more than the Infoset
> currently provides. As the Infoset itself is basically documentation, this
> doesn't seem reasonable.
Why not? The infoset seems mainly to be a guide for (W3C)
spec-writers, saying "unless you can think of a good reason otherwise,
your spec should deal mainly with /this/ level of abstraction of XML
documents". Most W3C specs (DOM, XPath) do operate at more-or-less the
same level of abstraction, so using the infoset just takes the
"more-or-less" bit out and ensures that most future specs operate at
/exactly/ the same level of abstraction. This seems to me to be rather
Richard Lanyon (Software Engineer) | "The medium is the message"
XML Script development, | - Marshall McLuhan
DecisionSoft Ltd. |