Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Monday 24 February 2003 10:10 pm, Mike Champion wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:49:31 +0000, Bill de hÓra <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Sure thing. But we'd be all well served not muddying XML with XML
> > Infosets.
> For better or worse XPath/XSLT and DOM dumped a lot of mud into the water
> very shortly after the XML 1.0 syntax spec came out.
That's true, but the important thing is to not be *blinded* by those
specifications. The API's and models that are part of those specifications
are necessarily tied to XML syntax to a large degree.
> But it seems to me that if you want to toss out all the flavors of
> Infosets, the XML party is pretty much over for the vast majority
> of users.
Here's the point: if you have a plurality, then standardising one in a syntax
specification doesn't buy you much. When I said "toss the infoset", I meant
out of XML-SW. I'd say make XML-SW as close to a pure syntax specification as
possible, and move other stuff out of the core. XML-SW - infoset - xml:space
- xml:lang - xml:base is pretty close to syntax-only.