[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Bullard, Claude L (Len)]
> Are these statements consistent?
>
> "...XML 1.0/XML Namespaces/XML Infoset/XML Base can be integrated without
an unreasonable amount of work and that the integration will result in
something significantly more coherent than what we have now."
>
> "...the key lesson is that the lowest layers should deal only with syntax
and should be semantically neutral."
>
Seems to me that XML 1.0 and XML Namespaces can go together as a syntactical
layer just fine. I do not quite see it for the infoset, since there is no
defined serialization for it. It is true that the infoset is supposed to
be a model of those things represented by the syntax of the document, so in
that sense it is still syntactical. Maybe that is what James Clarke was
thinking of.
The infoset tells you what is to be considered important in the syntax and
what is not, in an abstract sort of way. It is sort of meta-syntax. Now if
we had a Rec that started with the infoset and, after laying it out, said
"now here is how we serialize an infoset, and we call it XML", that might be
a good approach. But it tends to get away from the idea of marking up
documents, doesn't it? "Now let me see, looking and this document, I see a
'para' element information item right over here"... I just doesn't grab me
the same way.
Cheers,
Tom P
|
