• From: Michael Champion <Mike.Champion@s...>
• To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:10:45 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@s...>
To: "XMLDev list" <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: Why the Infoset?


> For example, the XML
> spec says that "<empty></empty>" and "<empty/>" are both well formed XML
> elements, but nothing about whether they are equivalent.  Infoset says (or
> at least the previous draft did) that they are.  Likewise, as was pointed
> out earlier, InfoSet says that certain well-formed XML elements such as
> "<ns::foo>blah</ns::foo>" do NOT have an unambiguous internal
> representation. Without the InfoSet, it would be unclear if this is an
> element named "foo" with a namespace prefix "ns", an element "foo" with a
> prefix "ns:", or an element named "ns::foo".

Sorry, this is unclear.  I should have said, without the Infoset, we could
argue about which was correct ... but the InfoSet says that there is no
correct answer, because this "non namespace well-formed" document can't be
represented in the InfoSet.

• References:
  • Why the Infoset?
    • From: "Paul W. Abrahams" <abrahams@v...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "Paul W. Abrahams" <abrahams@v...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Michael Champion <Mike.Champion@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by Date: Re: Question About Namespaces and DTDs
• Previous by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread