Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
Patrick, >>I'm just trying to persuade Patrick not to use a syntax that's >>similar-enough-to-XML-to-be-confusing as the input to his processes >>in the examples that he uses. > > In my defense, I am trying to persuade Jeni to not see a data model > as a limitation on a particular serialization syntax. I don't think that I do. I'm quite happy for XML to be interpreted as the Infoset, as the PSVI, as the XPath data model, as the DOM data model, as the LMNL data model, indeed as any data model anyone wants to use with it! XML is a syntax, that's all. > As I said, yesterday and I suppose it bears repeating, JITTs can use > standard, valid, well-formed XML documents and syntax for many > things. It can also use XML syntax that violates the XML data model > but I fail to see why that is confusing? I'm not sure what you mean by "XML syntax that violates the XML data model". There is no *the* XML data model -- XML is just a syntax. But there are very clear rules about that syntax -- the well-formedness rules. My point is that if a document breaks those well-formedness rules then it isn't in XML syntax. It's confusing to label documents that aren't well-formed XML as "using XML syntax". > That a serialization syntax is based on a particular data model is > fine. But the interpretation of that serialization syntax should not > be bound to the data model of its origin. I agree with this statement entirely. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
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