Lists Home |
Date Index |
email@example.com (Mike Champion) writes:
>I realize that many/most of you disagree with this worldview, but I
>think that it's fairly common, e.g. in the SOAP and XPath/XSLT/ XQuery
>worlds. I suggest that people who accept the contrary "the only
>foundation is the XML 1.x syntax" worldview should be somewhat careful
>not to assume that concepts that have no representation in the W3C
>infoset (much less my hyper-minimalist data model!) are universally
We need at least two models. I'm thoroughly tired of the Don Box view
(now occasionally moderated) of XML as a mere representation of an
infoset, but I also see little reason for proponents of that view to be
interested in the details of CDATA sections or character entities.
There really is no single foundation, just a lot of different
perspectives that can find justification in various bits of chapter and
verse. The Infoset was unfortunate in that it codified a particular
view of XML as "XML" to the apparent exclusion of others, but that
doesn't mean the rest of us need to pay attention to that exclusion.
There is an enormous amount of useful work to be done inside the parser
and below. Looking back, I think the vision of "all processing after
the parser" has limited our capabilities and shrunk our imagination.
The problem, however, doesn't lie with people whose work is more
appropriately done after the parser is finished, but with those of us
(myself included) who stand to benefit from a more text-centric view but
let the standards act as a barrier.
There's room for both, and diversity seems (as always in XML) valuable.
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:188.8.131.52.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether