[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 10:10 PM -0500 2/24/03, Mike Champion wrote:
>In other words, it's not going to happen, so what's the point of
>wishing it would? I wish people would just acknowledge that the XML
>syntax and Infoset(s) were joined at birth (every well-formed XML
>document can be parsed into a tree).
They weren't joined at birth, though, and that's the problem. There
are multiple, competing data models used by different specs and
tools. DOM1, DOM2, XPath 1, XPath 2, and the Infoset all have subtle
but significant differences in their data models, and that's just the
W3C specs. If you think any one data model is going to suffice,
you're kidding yourself. All they have in common is XML syntax (and
not always that since the infoset and DOM can both create
non-well-formed documents)
Perhaps if a data model had been written into XML 1.0, then it would
be possible to build on top of a data model, but it didn't so here we
are. Syntax is what we have. Syntax is what we need to work with.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Processing XML with Java (Addison-Wesley, 2002) |
| http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xmljava |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0201771861/cafeaulaitA |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
