[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Erik Wilde wrote:
>
>...
> i think that once you start doing interesting and diverse things with
> structured data, there must be a common understanding what is relevant
> and what is not, so in summary: what is the essential content of the
> data. and i think this is where the infoset started. xquery would be
> impossible with only the xml syntax. dom had to made the same decisions
> (though it made some of the differently).
That's fine. Infoset extensions are wonderful for spec writers. More
power to the infoset!
But the issue at hand is a *syntactic* *interoperability* issue. When I
see:
<foo gref="http://www.foo.com"/>
can I interpret that syntax as an XLink or not? Some people say "you
don't need to do that, just use:"
<foo xlink:href="http://www.foo.com"/> (or the archform equivalent)
Others say, I could use some kind of out-of-line annotation:
<rule match="foo"><map-to-xlink href="@gref"/> (or the CSS equivalent)
But solving the problem at a semantic level without having a syntactic
way to map from syntax to semantic is not helpful except for the few
vocabularies hard-coded into browsers.
The infoset is a useful solution to the spec-writers problem of how to
talk about XLink information once it has been recognized. But it doesn't
help with the recognition.
--
"When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim
suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith
-- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk."
Congressman James Traficant.
|
