OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: Non-infoset

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Foster [mailto:bob@objfac.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 19:01
> To: Alessandro Triglia
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: Non-infoset
> We would all like these numbers. What percentage of XML is:
> - Hand-authored?
> - Program-generated?
> - Used for data exchange?
> - Used to generate publications?
> Of the hand-authored XML, what percentage is written using tools that:
> - Expose POT (plain old text)?
> - Edit only the infoset (like form editors)?
> - Edit only the infoset plus entities (like WYSIWYG XHTML editors, 
> structure editors)?
> There are several permathreads around these questions, but I've never 
> seen a convincing answer here to these, or in fact, to any 
> quantitative 
> question. I hope you have better luck. However, the last time it was 
> suggested here that the percentage of hand-authored XML 
> written in POT 
> was small relative to the total, it was pretty roundly disagreed with.

That is a very good answer at last.

I was not asking for actual numbers or percentages, but for hints on what those percentages may be.

And I did not suggest, even for a moment, that exposing POT is a bad thing, or that XML should be simplified, or that some universal tool should take over some of the responsibilities of the author.  

What I did suggest (and am trying to determine) is that the infoset may be more important than some people believe for a large class of applications that exchange XML documents.


> Bob Foster


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS