• From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
• To: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
• Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:27:59 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, W. E. Perry wrote:

> The question we
> should be asking is not whether the Infoset has chosen the correct canonical
> semantics, but whether the syntactic possibilities of XML 1.0 should be
> curtailed in this way at all.

*shrug*

If you want to interpret the following XML documents differently (one per line):

	<foo bar="baz">
	<foo bar='baz'>
	<foo bar='b&#97;z'>
	<foo bar='b&#x61;z'>
	<foo bar="b&#x61;z">

by all means don't let *me* stop you.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@c...
C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant
le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux,
de rapport nyait pas.               -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• References:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by Date: Re: ISO 10646 vs. Unicode in XML specs
• Previous by thread: Re: Its the semantics dummy :-)
• Next by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread