Re: Why the Infoset?
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > At 04:58 PM 8/3/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote: > >The Infoset *does* define abstractions for XML. It doesn't define > >every possible abstraction for XML. > More to the point, it doesn't define abstractions for all of XML, leaving > them as 'fix in documentation' for those who need more than the Infoset > currently provides. As the Infoset itself is basically documentation, this > doesn't seem reasonable. Why not? The infoset seems mainly to be a guide for (W3C) spec-writers, saying "unless you can think of a good reason otherwise, your spec should deal mainly with /this/ level of abstraction of XML documents". Most W3C specs (DOM, XPath) do operate at more-or-less the same level of abstraction, so using the infoset just takes the "more-or-less" bit out and ensures that most future specs operate at /exactly/ the same level of abstraction. This seems to me to be rather useful. -- Richard Lanyon (Software Engineer) | "The medium is the message" XML Script development, | - Marshall McLuhan DecisionSoft Ltd. |
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