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

Re: The subsetting has begun

• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: The subsetting has begun
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 01:16:51 -0500
• In-reply-to: <oprk4q34aeezizxn@s...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B54D2C@R...> <3E5ABD9B.2050600@d...> <oprk4q34aeezizxn@s...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.4.3

On Monday 24 February 2003 10:10 pm, Mike Champion wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:49:31 +0000, Bill de hÓra <bill@d...> wrote:
> > Sure thing. But we'd be all well served not muddying XML with XML
> > Infosets.
>
> For better or worse XPath/XSLT and DOM dumped a lot of mud into the water
> very shortly after the XML 1.0 syntax spec came out. 

That's true, but the important thing is to not be *blinded* by those 
specifications. The API's and models that are part of those specifications 
are necessarily tied to XML syntax to a large degree. 

> But it seems to me that if you want to toss out all the flavors of 
> Infosets, the XML party is pretty much over for the vast majority 
> of users.

Here's the point: if you have a plurality, then standardising one in a syntax 
specification doesn't buy you much. When I said "toss the infoset", I meant 
out of XML-SW. I'd say make XML-SW as close to a pure syntax specification as 
possible, and move other stuff out of the core. XML-SW - infoset - xml:space 
- xml:lang - xml:base is pretty close to syntax-only.

• References:
  • RE: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Next by Date: [ANN] XML Standards Library 2.0 : Updated 2003-02-25
• Previous by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Next by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread