[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:05 PM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: Jeff Lowery; Bullard, Claude L (Len); xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>
> Well, despite being a vociferous defender of
> UniodeWithBrackets, I can see the necessity for the infoset,
> merely for the community of spec writers. If you're
> describing something like schema or xpath or whatever, it's
> just way easier to do it in terms of the data model than in
> terms of syntax.
>
> I suspect that the infoset is of little interest to ordinary
> programmers doing ordinary work, who will work either at the
> level of the syntax or of some particular API. -Tim
Agreed. However API designers especially those that would like to enable
the implementation of virtual XML documents and XML views are better
served by basing their work on the infoset than on the XML 1.0 syntax.
--
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
rights.
|
