OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] lots of WS reading material

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Yes. As Doc G. put it, "nothing happens until a bit changes state."

The question becomes when is it useful to build a requirement 
based on an abstraction, and when does one have to specify 
a physical if transient entity?  A stab at it using a metaphor: 
the syntax provides us a set of brown bags.  An infoset gives 
us a set of labels for these bags that tell us what is in 
each labeled bag.  I'm sure a better educated CS person can 
do a better job with that.

Still, I think we have come to where so many of our conflicts 
start:  what we use the abstract specifications for and what 
we use the physical if transitent entity specifications for.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

[in response to John Cowan's pointing out how close the infoset is to 
the underlying XML]

> That would tend to suggest that for the XML on The 
> Web system, the Infoset specification is core and 
> that XML 1.0 is a syntax mapping corresponding to 
> a subset of SGML.

Except for, there's no de facto or de jure way to exchange an infoset as 
an infoset.  And what we do on the Web is exchange data.  This is why 
XML is normatively defined at a syntactical level.  Without reliable 
data interchange, you have nothing.  With it, you have the potential to 
build anything. -Tim


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS