• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:48:10 -0700
• References: <200208291638.MAA28884@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

John Cowan wrote:
> Aaron Skonnard scripsit:
> 
>>So is there any chance that someone from the W3C is listening so that
>>these endless debates can be transformed into something constructive? 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, I'm a member of the Core WG

And I'm on the TAG.  There are occasions when the message coming out of 
xml-dev is fairly coherent, and when that occurs it tends to get noticed 
(examples would be SAX, RDDL, RESTifying SOAP) and not just at the W3C. 
  An example of something that has emerged and is starting to get a bit 
of traction is the fairly widespread distaste for XML Schema.

As John notes, there is nothing remotely approaching xml-dev consensus, 
however rough, on issues such as namespaces and the infoset.  I think 
that this is a fairly accurate reflection of the state of affairs out 
there in our profession. -Tim

• References:
  • Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
• 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: Re: linking, 80/20
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread