• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,"xml-dev@x..." <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:15:00 -0400

"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.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by Date: RE: Are there still a lot of people using DTD rather than schema?
• Previous by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread