OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> Interesting. Why would I want to drop the 'XML' from http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/ ? 

Perhaps because a consequence of what you're saying is that the XML 
Infoset is more general than an information set for XML syntax needs 
to be (if it wasn't, alternate serializations of an XML Infoset 
should be illegal or just not possible). But on rereading this passage:

"However as many proposals foralternate syntaxes for XML (including 
binary ones) have shown this doesn't mean that XML infosets 
necessarily have to be UnicodeWithAngleBrackets. "

Assuming you know the difference between the XML Infoset and XML... 
since when is XML (aka UnicodeWithAngleBrackets) an XML Infoset? And 
how can a syntax have an alternate syntax? I suspect you're trying 
to say that alternate syntaxes may exist for an XML /Infoset/ but 
it's hard to tell. People do seem to believe that XML is one 
possible serialization of an XML Infoset, hence SOAP folks expect 
that they can stuff any old binary down a wire so long as the 
receiving processor emits information items as constrained by the 
SOAP spec.

And since XML 1.0 doesn't by definition have to conform to XML 
Namespaces, you can't produce a meaningful XML Infoset from some 
(most?) XML, but I'm being ungenerous now.

Which brings us right back to the matter of why the 'XML' part 
shouldn't just be dropped from 'XML Infoset' for being superfluous. 
It seems like historical baggage at this point, a bit like the way 
some technologies names cease to be acronyms when the acronym stops 
being relevant.

Bill de hÓra


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS