Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Infoset as subset of useful
 I just wrote: >I'll respectfully submit that I regard the Infoset as tragically >incomplete in such matters. I suppose this rates an explanation. I've never been comfortable with the notion of an "infoset" as something which can be extrapolated generically from any XML document, however unusual its construction. To some extent, I find the Infoset to be an odd imposition of expectations from SGML which were never fully expressed in the XML 1.0 specification, which itself conflates lexical expression with processing expectations. Given that the Infoset already allows applications to be compliant by expressing how they do or don't implement portions of the Infoset - a refrigerator can be compliant, with a Post-It note expressing that it needs none of the Infoset for proper implementation[1] - it seems like a wasted opportunity for the Infoset to be written only as a subset of XML's lexical potential. Starting with the complete set - and then allowing developers to specify which parts they do or don't care about, perhaps with guidance from the Infoset spec - seems like a much wiser idea. I can't say I've found any use for the Infoset as currently written, except as a contributor of such fine terms as "element information item" which litter the landscape of XML verbiage. And yes, I'd strongly suggest that the W3C discard the Infoset as presently written and start again, perhaps from XSet[2], or drop the project entirely. The XPath model seems quite popular if not without its own flaws. Simon St.Laurent http://simonstl.com [1] - http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#conformance [2] - http://www.openhealth.org/XSet 
|
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
|
|||||||||
