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

Re: The subsetting has begun

• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: The subsetting has begun
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:05:07 -0800
• Cc: Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>,"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B54D2A@R...>
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B54D2A@R...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> XML infosets are already wide spread and will become even moreso in the
> coming years. That is enough reason to have a data model that is
> somewhat bound to the XML 1.0 syntax. However as many proposals for
> alternate syntaxes for XML (including binary ones) have shown this
> doesn't mean that XML infosets necessarily have to be
> UnicodeWithAngleBrackets. 

Well, despite being a vociferous defender of UniodeWithBrackets, I can 
see the necessity for the infoset, merely for the community of spec 
writers.  If you're describing something like schema or xpath or 
whatever, it's just way easier to do it in terms of the data model than 
in terms of syntax.

I suspect that the infoset is of little interest to ordinary programmers 
doing ordinary work, who will work either at the level of the syntax or 
of some particular API.  -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• References:
  • RE: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Are the data users happy? Why not?
• Next by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Previous by thread: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Next by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread