[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Michael Kay]
>The problem is that it should have an underlying model, but it hasn't:
>it only has a "overlying" model (the InfoSet) that is retrofitted to the
>syntax. The fact that the model is retrofitted rather than being a
>normative part of XML means that questions like "are comments
>significant" have never been satisfactorily answered. Even the new
>versions of the specs (XML 1.1 and Namespaces 1.1) do not refer
>normatively to the InfoSet, so these questions remain debateable. And
>the confusion over marginally-significant stuff like CDATA sections,
>namespace prefixes, and inter-element whitespace continues to cause
>interoperability nightmares. If people had defined the model before
>defining the syntax we wouldn't be in this mess.
Amen to that!
Sean
|
