[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, 06 May 2003 23:15:26 +0100, Sean McGrath
<sean.mcgrath@propylon.com> wrote:
> Take a look at RelaxNG compact syntax. Beautiful.
> XML as a native syntax is not for everything. That way lies madness.
> Having said that, isomorphisms from "native" syntaxes to XML syntaxes and
> back again (XML shadows), will be, I believe an increasingly appreciated
> technique to keep baby and bathwater together in the future.
I agree with all of that.
> This is the inevitable result of the diminution in XML-as-text that comes
> with infoset fixation I'm afraid.
Ahh, but is the Infoset not an "XML shadow" that lets one define
isomorphisms? Of course, it was intended to define isomorphisms between
alternative XML syntax representations such as
<empty/> and <empty></empty> but isn't also the shadow that is cast by a
RelaxNG compact syntax, or a WikiML syntax?
> Transformation is the only truth [2]
And XSLT transformations work off the Infoset (well, the XPath data model,
sortof more or less the same thing), so any syntax whose shadow can be made
to be the Infoset can be transformed with XSLT.
Come to the Dark Side, oops sorry, Infoset ... Feel the power of the
Infoset, Luuuke. :-)
|
