[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Thanks Gavin. For the kinds of subsets being
discussed, is a 'syntax-only' specification
the only kind of spec needed? I grant
that works for XML but it opens up the
question, is a proper subset of XML 1.0
really what is being asked for by those
asking for a subset? Or are they asking
for a syntax subset plus a matching infoset?
len
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@rbii.com]
On Monday 24 February 2003 03:57 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Question: how many of you participating in this
> thread have read Tim Bray's XML-SW paper at
> textuality.com?
>
> http://www.textuality.com/xml/xmlSW.html
I'd remove namespaces, the infoset, xml:space, xml:lang and xml:base.
In the case of namespaces, xml:space, xml:lang, and xml:base: these are markup
constructs that needn't be standardized in the *syntax* specification, but
should instead be defined at a higher level.
The infoset is similar: the information gleaned from an XML document is
necessarily application-specific, and as such, there is no need to make a
single abstract set of information canonical.
|
