[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Patrick,
>>I don't think that I do. I'm quite happy for XML to be interpreted
>>as the Infoset, as the PSVI, as the XPath data model, as the DOM
>>data model, as the LMNL data model, indeed as any data model anyone
>>wants to use with it! XML is a syntax, that's all.
>
> Sorry, that is simply not correct.
>
> Underlying XML is a data model. That data model is set forth at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Datamodel.html
Ahh, I see. This must be the nub of our disagreement.
The document that you quote is not a normative definition of XML.
There are many normative definitions of data models for XML, including
the Infoset and XPath.
It's a classic "chicken and egg" thing -- data models and syntaxes are
intertwined -- but in this case, XML is defined as a syntax, which can
have many data models; LMNL is defined as a data model, which can have
many syntaxes.
I don't know how to persuade you of this, but I see that Tim Bray's
written a message that will hopefully help...
Cheers,
Jeni
---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
|
