[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The less abstract Infoset
- From: Paul Grosso <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:30:19 -0600
At 21:11 2001 03 09 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>Jeff Rafter wrote:
>> Thanks for the reply. Suddenly my question seems rather naive. I am
>> wondering though, are these implementations of the Infoset or do
>> the simply
>> make use of the Infoset?
>The question is not naive at all. You *are* persisting in trying to make an
>API out of the Infoset which is fine, except that it is still an API derived
>from the Infoset. For example, substitute the Infoset's "InformationItem"
>with the DOM's "Node" and see that the DOM (in an idealized fashion) really
>is an implementation of the Infoset.
I don't mean to get picky about the meaning of words such as
"API" or "implement," but when such words are used with respect
to the Infoset, I get nervous that some people's expectations may
not match those of the developers of the Infoset spec.
If you are interested in this, please read the lastest Infoset
Working Draft , especially the Introduction  where it
This specification defines an abstract data set called the
XML Information Set (Infoset). Its purpose is to provide a
consistent set of definitions for use in other specifications
that need to refer to the information in a well-formed XML
It does not attempt to be exhaustive; the primary criterion
for inclusion of an information item or property has been
that of expected usefulness in future specifications.
(The Last Call period for comments has ended, but since this
is still at the Working Draft stage, comments can always be
sent to the public mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org,
If you do look at this Last Call draft, you should be aware that,
in the processing of comments, the WG has decided to remove cdata
section and entity start/end markers, and there will also be several
more minor changes between the current draft and the next one.)
We sometimes call the Infoset a "library of definitions" for
use by other specifications. As such, speaking of an "infoset
implementation" makes no sense. I don't have a problem with
people using the phrase "infoset implementation" informally as
a short hand for meaning something else (though I'm not sure
myself just what it would mean), but I don't want people thinking
that the Infoset is something that it is not, only to be surprised
or disappointed at a later date.