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

Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)

• To: shunting@e... (Sam Hunting)
• Subject: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:24:16 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: dareo@m... (Dare Obasanjo), jeni@j... (Jeni Tennison), pdurusau@e... (Patrick Durusau), wperry@f... (W. E. Perry), xml-dev@l... (XML DEV)
• In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0210071040520.20517-100000@w...> from "Sam Hunting" at Oct 07, 2002 10:44:03 AM

Sam Hunting scripsit:

> <counter-troll> The phrase <troll> XML is a <phrase>data model</phrase>,
> the syntax in the XML 1.0 REC is just an annoying inconvenience.  
> </troll>
> does not appear in XML 1.0, therefore XML has no data model whatever,
> since the Infoset isn't one and doesn't claim to be.</countertroll>

<fishing locus="bridge">
Say rather that XML has no *unique authoritative* data model whatever,
since the Infoset isn't one and doesn't claim to be.  But why should there
be such a thing?  XML has many data models for different purposes.
The Infoset provides a common terminology into which they can be translated.
</fishing>

-- 
John Cowan        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan          jcowan@r...
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
    • From: Sam Hunting <shunting@e...>

• References:
  • RE: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
    • From: Sam Hunting <shunting@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Next by Date: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Previous by thread: RE: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Next by thread: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread