|
|
Only "an" infoset? (Was: Syntax + object model)
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 25/05/2003 09:43:56 GMT Daylight Time, cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes:
Arjun Ray scripsit:
>I think John Cowan once clarified that the Infoset Rec actually specifies
>only "an infoset", and not in any way "the infoset" in some normatively
>exclusive sense (though "derivative" specs of late seem quite eager to
>treat it so).
I don't think I said that.
John,
Doesn't the W3C XML Information Set Recommendation only define "an" infoset?
Since the Rec explicitly eschews being "exhaustive" ... by which I take it to mean it acknowledges not being complete (anticipated usefulness is the expressed criterion for inclusion)... then surely what the Rec defines is only *an* infoset?
In the other direction the PSVI is a different kind of infoset, so demonstrating that the Infoset is only *an* infoset.
Wouldn't you agree?
Of course all that assumes that we know / can agree on what an infoset is in the first place. :)
Andrew Watt
"An infoset means what I intend it to mean, no more and no less." after Humpty Dumpty.
|
|
|
|
|
|