|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why the Infoset?
At 09:05 PM 7/31/00 +0800, Rick JELLIFFE wrote: >The infoset lets people know what information will be in the parsed XML, >regardless of which lexical form was used. If I actually believed that was all the impact the Infoset would have, I'd be far less worried. I've been somewhat amazed to see how people all tend to have different views of the amount of information that needs to be presented 'as the XML document' to an application. DTDs seemed to be the first to go, and I think a lot of us miss them, even in application processing. For a long while, namespace prefixes were discarded - and then the Schemas and XLink folks found them useful in attribute values. John Cowan's character reference examples feel convincing to me - in exactly the opposite manner of what he intended. I'm not sure there is any value to creating an abstraction that only represents one 'processed' phase of what a syntax is capable of, when it's the only 'blessed' abstraction. I'd have found the Infoset far more useful if it had started by representing the items actually available in XML syntax and then defined the processes by which they get reduced to a smaller set of items. (Yes, I'm aware the Infoset has 'value' to those who find it meets their needs - I'm also aware that it imposes a cost on those whose needs are not me, simply by being the 'Recommendation' and blocking other approaches.) Sadly, the Infoset seems stuck on one idea, and derailing moving philosophical trains at the W3C appears to be damn near impossible. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








