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

Re: Infosets a Horror Story? ( was Re: Article:"The

• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Infosets a Horror Story? ( was Re: Article:"The horror of XML")
• From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
• Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:00:06 -0500
• Organization: Fiduciary Automation
• References: <YRN1V5YGC2YB9ULK65VTLHLKID87.3dc14e08@MChamp>

Mike Champion wrote:

> All this is not going to happen until the cruft overwhelms us, and so far people
> have dealt with the cruft by ad hoc profiles (e.g., the one SOAP uses) and implicit
> agreement on what the specs really mean. We shall see if that suffices in the long
> run.

What you call cruft I call the compositional framework or the compositional tradition.
XML as a genre of composition is entitled to that, just a poetry is built upon one and
drama upon another. Implicit agreements are realized with the instantiation of every
new document. That is why it can suffice that the actual, workable agreements are
implicit: every use of them yields a testable concrete instance. This is the craft (or
if you must, the cruft) of compositional practice.

Respectfully,

Walter Perry

• References:
  • Infosets a Horror Story? ( was Re: Article:"The horror of XML")
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: unable to set external-schemaLocation property in XercesJ 2.2.0
• Next by Date: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• Previous by thread: Infosets a Horror Story? ( was Re: Article:"The horror of XML")
• Next by thread: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread