• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: shared costs (was something about infoset has two daddies)
• From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:37:53 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <r01050300-1015-F96F1BCBB47611D69F470003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020721

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> I don't think Tim has come particularly close to endorsing your "let's
> solve all these problems with the Infoset" approach, however. (Tim may
> want to address that directly.)

this is not the approach i am promoting.

> You may have noticed that I in fact released an API today; I'm not
> opposed to APIs, though I have lots of doubt about creating one true
> API.  I am quite thoroughly opposed to the notion that we can reasonably
> solve markup problems by piling abstractions on abstractions.

markup is one representation of data, apis are another. it is *very* 
useful to have a data model that can be used as a foundation for both 
things, otherwise you run the risk of introducing inconsistencies and 
incompatible solutions.

dret.

• References:
  • Re: shared costs (was something about infoset has two daddies)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: namespace reprise
• Next by Date: Searching a SinglNode
• Previous by thread: Re: shared costs (was something about infoset has two daddies)
• Next by thread: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread