[
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
|
