[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Infoset as subset of useful
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 16:19:54 -0400 (EDT)
David Brownell scripsit:
> And John Cowan's comment explains why:
> > But the Infoset is not founded on any real principle at all: its
> > design is empirical.
> There ought to be some organizing principle behind it. That'd
> be better support for principled improvements/objections/etc ...
> What I really wanted out of infoset was such a principled data
> model, not a grab-bag, to support what Tim Bray described:
Very good. You invent the principles, I'll design the data model,
and we can call it "Infoset, Part 2".
> Though it doesn't. For example, it doesn't expose declarations
> for parsed entities (as exposed by DOM L1 and SAX2), for
> elements, or for attributes; or <![CDATA[ ... ]]> info.
Either DOM's way or the highway, and we chose the highway.
So it goes.
(This is not a criticism of the DOM WG, which had their own
special constraints to satisfy.)
> I suspect that we're probably not going to get a more useful
> formal XML data model for maintaining such consistency
> than what Infoset delivers. It's better than the XML 1.0 spec
> for that purpose, even with its current omissions.
Yup. We are, after all, dealing with SGML, devised by a lawyer
from a common-law (i.e. explicitly anti-theoretical) tradition.
John Cowan email@example.com
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore