Re: Why the Infoset?
At 07:48 AM 8/1/00 -0700, Joe English wrote: >It seems to me that we already have a 100% complete abstract >model for XML: the formal grammar in the XML 1.0 Recommendation. >This assigns a role to every character in the input sequence >via grammar productions. A parse tree derived from this grammar >is also the *minimal* complete representation -- any model that >doesn't account for every character is by necessity incomplete. The problem I have with that is that the Infoset isn't just describing a subset of XML syntax - it's creating an abstract representation of that syntax. To keep that abstraction from strangling the potential of the syntax, I'd much rather see the abstraction provide a full representation of the syntactic constructs _before_ subsetting it down to 'what comes out of the parser'. Too much gets lost in that transition, and leaving it entirely out of the Infoset will mean it's basically lost for good. Maybe it's time to strip XML down to the items listed in the Infoset, and discard everything else, but that seems like a more ambitious idea than the Infoset is supposed to be. 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