RE: more grist
> However, tying it to something like the Infoset, and > through that, the sort of things you might see in XML Schema, or TREX, or RELAX, might > make sense. That way, the implementation is tied to no specific syntax, > while maintaining the features that schemas offer. What I find confusing, is that all the newer drafts are clearly reliant on the PSVI. So, if this is going to be the 'real' or 'core' Infoset, why isn't it documented as such? Of course, you can argue that the Infoset spec merely defines a structure or framework, and the real meat can be defined elsewhere. I don't think thats enough in this case. (And personally I hate to see things documented in more than one place) It looks to me that if the current trend continues, then the term "Infoset" will become synonymous with "Post-Schema-Validation-Infoset". If this is the real intention, why not make this clear from the outset, and document the decision in the Infoset spec. If its not, then why the reliance on the PSVI? In previous Infoset debates its been argued that the spec meets the 80/20 criteria: capturing enough properties for most applications. Its blindingly clear from the latest drafts and requirements docs that this can't be true. The PSVI is the true Infoset that really meets those 80/20 requirements. Not that I agree with the trend, just looking for some clarity. (I also agree with SimonStL's previous suggestions about stripping out other useful bits and pieces, like the regexp sections.) Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds, Systems Architect | "Pluralitas non est ponenda http://weblogs.userland.com/eclectic | sine necessitate" http://www.xml.com/pub/xmldeviant | -- William of Ockham
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