[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion wrote:
> But it further strengthens the argument that essentially nobody except
> Simon :-) and the proverbial desperate Perl hacker actually works with
> XML at the pure syntax level.
The proverbial Desperate Perl Hacker uses SAX and DOM, just like everybody else
(with the notable exception that there are more than those two options available
to him, mostly through partial trees or simplified trees -- alternate infosets
if you will).
However I think there are quite a few Desperate Text Editor Hackers that work at
the syntax level :) I personally hate those "tree views" in XML editors that in
effect allow one to edit an infoset directly.
> That makes me even more suspicious of the
> argument that XML's power comes purely from the syntax and not the
> Infoset(s). And yes, the problem is the plural here.
I'm suspicious of any argument claiming that XML's power comes purely from any
source. Imho XML's power naturally comes from many sources.
You have to credit the syntax with supporting so many infosets though ;)
> Can the XML world agree on one and only one conception of the Infoset?
> Interesting question. Probably "no" if everybody gets a vote and a
> veto. Probabably "yes" in the sense that once one takes root and the
> dust settles, the benefits of standardization will outweigh the costs of
> losing things like one's preferred view of where the namespace
> information is attached to the Infoset.
Hear, hear!
--
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
