Lists Home |
Date Index |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <email@example.com>
To: "Karl Waclawek" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 3:16 PM
> At 12:48 PM -0400 4/12/04, Karl Waclawek wrote:
> >As an example, would you say that an application which generates
> >SAX call-backs from an internal proprietary object model, for the
> >purpose of validation (or serialization), does *not* make use of
> >the Infoset abstraction
> Correct. It does not make use of the Infoset abstraction. It makes
> use of the SAX abstraction which is related to but not the same as
> the Infoset abstraction. It probably makes use of a subset of the SAX
Formally it is not the same, I guess.
However, it seems to me that whenever I am referring to
an XML document that does not (yet) exist in a (necessarily)
abstract way, I am creating some sort of Infoset-like abstraction.
That is close enough for me - the difference doesn't really matter.
Actually, the SAX abstraction alone may be rather impractical.
I would find it hard to map my proprietary object model directly
to SAX without coming up with some Infoset-like abstraction first,
even if it is not formalized.