Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Erik Wilde wrote: > >... > i think that once you start doing interesting and diverse things with > structured data, there must be a common understanding what is relevant > and what is not, so in summary: what is the essential content of the > data. and i think this is where the infoset started. xquery would be > impossible with only the xml syntax. dom had to made the same decisions > (though it made some of the differently). That's fine. Infoset extensions are wonderful for spec writers. More power to the infoset! But the issue at hand is a *syntactic* *interoperability* issue. When I see: <foo gref="http://www.foo.com"/> can I interpret that syntax as an XLink or not? Some people say "you don't need to do that, just use:" <foo xlink:href="http://www.foo.com"/> (or the archform equivalent) Others say, I could use some kind of out-of-line annotation: <rule match="foo"><map-to-xlink href="@gref"/> (or the CSS equivalent) But solving the problem at a semantic level without having a syntactic way to map from syntax to semantic is not helpful except for the few vocabularies hard-coded into browsers. The infoset is a useful solution to the spec-writers problem of how to talk about XLink information once it has been recognized. But it doesn't help with the recognition. -- "When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith -- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk." Congressman James Traficant.
|
