> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 9:49 AM
> To: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
> At 09:04 AM 3/29/01 -0500, Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com wrote:
> >As for the order of attributes, doesn't XML 1.0 specifically
> declare this to be insignificant?
> I've taken that on faith for a while, though I'm wondering
> more and more
> about how wise that decision really was. It's not in Tim Bray's
> annotations - it only explicitly appears in the second edition:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-starttags (para after prod 41)
Thanks for looking this up! But, uhhh, "Note that the order of attribute specifications in a start-tag or empty-element tag is not significant" is pretty explicit. I think the InfoSet has gone a bit far in implying the insignificance of various things that databases and editors need to preserve, but I wouldn't want to have anything to do with an effort to imply significance to things that XML 1.0 defines as NOT significant.
I just remembered one other thing that the InfoSet doesn't model that has generated some discussion about round-trippability --- the two legal XML syntaxes for empty elements. Does anyone care about round-tripping the specific syntax used in some instance, e.g. <empty></empty> vs <empty/> ? There was some discussion on SML-DEV once about using it to encode the distinction between an element with the value [empty string] vs an element with the value "null" ... but the fact that the distinction wouldn't necessarily survive a round-trip with an InfoSet-compliant tool put that idea to rest.