[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: [xml

• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
• From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:17:39 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <r01050300-1015-358259EEB43E11D69F470003937A08C2@[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:
> As long as we're arguing about the Infoset, I have to say that I find
> the decision of XPath to consider namespace declarations something other
> than attributes and of the Infoset to put them in a separate [namespace
> attributes] box to be a painful sign that abstractions are dangerous to
> useful syntax.  I have no idea who decided we all needed to be protected
> from namespace declarations this way, but I've yet to see a
> justification for it.

the justification comes from interest and convenience. if i am working a 
lot with namespaces, then i am happy to have them pre-cooked in the 
infoset. if i think that there should be nothing but pure xml 1.0, then 
i want to see them as attributes.

> But hey, we all know why the namespaces spec exists: to create pointless
> arguments!  (Ditto for the Infoset spec.)

exactly! sure we can treat everything as pure xml and have everybody 
implement their own namespace handling and link handling and whatever, 
but this is not in the interest of people wo would like to have better 
support for commonly used mechanisms.

cheers,

dret.

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

• References:
  • Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Next by Date: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
• Previous by thread: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
• Next by thread: shared costs (was something about infoset has two daddies)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread