Lists Home |
Date Index |
XML infosets are already wide spread and will become even moreso in the
coming years. That is enough reason to have a data model that is
somewhat bound to the XML 1.0 syntax. However as many proposals for
alternate syntaxes for XML (including binary ones) have shown this
doesn't mean that XML infosets necessarily have to be
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
A bank is where they lend you an umbrella and then ask for it back when
it begins to rain.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:Jeff.Lowery@creo.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 2:24 PM
> To: Dare Obasanjo; Bullard, Claude L (Len); firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Future versions of XML that don't make the infoset a first class
> > consideration are refusing to learn from history. For many
> people who
> > use XML, the syntax is incidental but the data model is not.
> If you want to build upon a data model for data interchange,
> why use one that's so obviously closely bound to one
> particular syntax? Certainly, one could do better than the
> Infoset when defining such a model.