[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Michael Kay scripsit:
> 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.
The Infoset isn't a model, it's a rag-bag of terminology.
See (randomly chosen!) .sig below.
And as for whether comments are significant, the question to ask is
"Significant to whom?" They're not significant to me, but YMMV.
> If people had defined the model before
> defining the syntax we wouldn't be in this mess.
No, we'd be in analysis paralysis, with no syntax and no tools.
--
Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML John Cowan
Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker jcowan@reutershealth.com
saying "No information items inside". http://www.reutershealth.com
--Eve Maler http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
|
