[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I'm not so sure. As Tim said, it is a convenient
abstraction for the spec writer, and pertinent to
this thread, if the SOAP spec is written in terms
of an infoset, one might assume that a discussion
of a subset to meet SOAP's requirements would also
require a description of the infoset. That could
be a flawed assumption but part of the reason for
this thread from my perspective is to discover what
is an isn't strictly necessary to meet the requirements
for XML subsets. XML 1.0 does not discuss
the infoset. That's a different specification. If
SOAP is an infoset based specification, why do they
need a subset of XML 1.n? Just from a document
citation perspective, that doesn't quite make sense.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill de hOra [mailto:bill@dehora.net]
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> However as many proposals for
> alternate syntaxes for XML (including binary ones) have shown this
> doesn't mean that XML infosets necessarily have to be
> UnicodeWithAngleBrackets.
That infoset is an abstract content model, or a plain ole syntax
tree. Drop the 'XML'; it's superfluous.
|
