[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Alessandro Triglia wrote:
>
> I am not asserting that all producers of XML fit the above description, but
> I like thinking that a lot of them do. Otherwise, it would be hard to
> understand the significance of the XML infoset, the significance of SAX, the
> significance of XML Schema, etc. The XML infoset is important, isn't it?
No, I don't think it is. Outside of the small community of spec writers
and some implementers, it's hard to think of anybody who really cares
about or even understands the XML infoset. Developers care about the
data models exposed by DOM, SAX, XPath, etc. The infoset doesn't enter
into it.
The infoset was too late out of the gate to have any real effect. If it
had been part of the XML 1.0 spec it might have mattered. However, since
it postdated XML, XPath, DOM, and many other specs by years, it's effect
has been negligible. That it is neither a proper superset nor a proper
subset of the information content of an XML 1.0 document has not helped
either.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
|
