Infoset as subset of useful

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

I just wrote:
>I'll respectfully submit that I regard the Infoset as tragically
>incomplete in such matters.

I suppose this rates an explanation.

I've never been comfortable with the notion of an "infoset" as something
which can be extrapolated generically from any XML document, however
unusual its construction.

To some extent, I find the Infoset to be an odd imposition of
expectations from SGML which were never fully expressed in the XML 1.0
specification, which itself conflates lexical expression with processing
expectations.

Given that the Infoset already allows applications to be compliant by
expressing how they do or don't implement portions of the Infoset - a
refrigerator can be compliant, with a Post-It note expressing that it
needs none of the Infoset for proper implementation[1] - it seems like a
wasted opportunity for the Infoset to be written only as a subset of
XML's lexical potential.  

Starting with the complete set - and then allowing developers to specify
which parts they do or don't care about, perhaps with guidance from the
Infoset spec - seems like a much wiser idea.

I can't say I've found any use for the Infoset as currently written,
except as a contributor of such fine terms as "element information item"
which litter the landscape of XML verbiage.  And yes, I'd strongly
suggest that the W3C discard the Infoset as presently written and start
again, perhaps from XSet[2], or drop the project entirely.  The XPath
model seems quite popular if not without its own flaws.

Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com

[1] - http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#conformance
[2] - http://www.openhealth.org/XSet