|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
> Carelessness on > my part but I was surprised that anyone would claim that XML did not > have an underlying data model. The problem is that it should have an underlying model, but it hasn't: it only has a "overlying" model (the InfoSet) that is retrofitted to the syntax. The fact that the model is retrofitted rather than being a normative part of XML means that questions like "are comments significant" have never been satisfactorily answered. Even the new versions of the specs (XML 1.1 and Namespaces 1.1) do not refer normatively to the InfoSet, so these questions remain debateable. And the confusion over marginally-significant stuff like CDATA sections, namespace prefixes, and inter-element whitespace continues to cause interoperability nightmares. If people had defined the model before defining the syntax we wouldn't be in this mess. Michael Kay Software AG home: Michael.H.Kay@n... work: Michael.Kay@s...
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








