[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: more grist
- From: Leigh Dodds <email@example.com>
- To: Ben Trafford <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:38:21 +0000
> However, tying it to something like the Infoset, and
> through that, the sort of things you might see in XML Schema, or TREX, or
> make sense. That way, the implementation is tied to no specific syntax,
> while maintaining the features that schemas offer.
What I find confusing, is that all the newer drafts are clearly reliant
on the PSVI. So, if this is going to be the 'real' or 'core' Infoset, why
it documented as such?
Of course, you can argue that the Infoset spec merely defines a structure or
framework, and the real meat can be defined elsewhere. I don't think thats
enough in this case.
(And personally I hate to see things documented in more than one place)
It looks to me that if the current trend continues, then the term "Infoset"
synonymous with "Post-Schema-Validation-Infoset".
If this is the real intention, why not make this clear from the outset, and
the decision in the Infoset spec.
If its not, then why the reliance on the PSVI?
In previous Infoset debates its been argued that the spec meets the 80/20
criteria: capturing enough properties for most applications. Its blindingly
from the latest drafts and requirements docs that this can't be true. The
PSVI is the true Infoset that really meets those 80/20 requirements.
Not that I agree with the trend, just looking for some clarity.
(I also agree with SimonStL's previous suggestions about stripping out
other useful bits and pieces, like the regexp sections.)
Leigh Dodds, Systems Architect | "Pluralitas non est ponenda
http://weblogs.userland.com/eclectic | sine necessitate"
http://www.xml.com/pub/xmldeviant | -- William of Ockham
- From: Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: more grist
- From: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>