[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Why the Infoset?

• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>, "xml-dev@x..." <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:38:49 -0400

At 07:15 PM 7/31/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
>
>> In the case of the Infoset, I find the reductionism distressing.  Although
>> the specification certain acknowledges that something is lost, it also
>> describes itself as:
>> 
>> >a description of the information available in a well-formed XML document
>> [XML].
>> 
>> That's fine - except that the Infoset is the only 'canonical' description
>> available, and a large chunk of information is excluded from the Infoset,
>> presumably never to return.
>
>Entity information is available.  Character references are lost, it is true.
>If you want them back, shout now.

Sure!  I also want DTDs back, and everything else available from the
original XML document.  Anything else lost?

Then you can go ahead and subset that all you like to define a core that
you find pleasing.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by Date: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Previous by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread