[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 16:57:54 -0400
Tim Bray wrote:
> ...The XML syntax was designed first. The
> infoset came later. Some people are horrified at this, feeling that
> the infoset (or grove, depending on your religion) is The Real Thing
> and the syntax merely an ephemeral expression of it.
>
Tim often writes that syntax is primary to XML. This is an important
statement and served as inspiration for the XSet property set or grove
definition of XML. http://www.openhealth.org/XSet XSet takes its object
model directly and unabriged from the XML syntax as expressed by the XML 1.0
EBNF productions. If you look at the productions the entire 'object model'
is there. The 'infoset' is itself a simplification of the full fidelity XML
property set (synonymous with production set using XSet's definition).
It is entirely logical that one should start out with a full fidelity model
and then subset it into what is 'meaningful' for the majority of purposes
(i.e. the infoset).
Sorry, I couldn't resist beating the tartare :-)
Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org
|
