[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 13:47, Erik Wilde wrote:
> Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> > You may find that the Infoset isn't as popular a notion as you seem to
> > find it, and that the only Infoset extensions some people (myself
> > vocally included) are willing to work with are those which can be
> > expressed explicitly in XML 1.0.
>
> i honestly don't see the point. people working with dom or sax or xslt
Horsefeathers.
DOM and SAX are pre-infoset APIs. SAX does a pretty good job of
supplying all of the information later canonicalized in the infoset,
partly because some parts of the infoset are reasonably logical, and
partly because the design of SAX is sufficiently clean to support it.
DOM <opinion expression-type="forbidden-word">sucks</opinion> at this.
Super-infoset, sub-infoset, just forget infoset, because the mapping
isn't clean.
> (and it obviously worked ;-), but if you really want to support infoset
> extensions, then you have to go all the way.
Ugh. Part of the reason that the infoset is an attractive abstraction
is because it tried (even if it didn't quite succeed) to KISS. Adding
more infoset items (more! more! more!) is an exercise in marginalizing
the infoset; the more cruft shoved in, the less interesting it is.
Amy!
--
Amelia A. Lewis amyzing@talsever.com alicorn@mindspring.com
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
-- Dorothy Parker, "Resume"
|
