RE: The subsetting has begun
I'm not so sure. As Tim said, it is a convenient abstraction for the spec writer, and pertinent to this thread, if the SOAP spec is written in terms of an infoset, one might assume that a discussion of a subset to meet SOAP's requirements would also require a description of the infoset. That could be a flawed assumption but part of the reason for this thread from my perspective is to discover what is an isn't strictly necessary to meet the requirements for XML subsets. XML 1.0 does not discuss the infoset. That's a different specification. If SOAP is an infoset based specification, why do they need a subset of XML 1.n? Just from a document citation perspective, that doesn't quite make sense. len -----Original Message----- From: Bill de hOra [mailto:bill@d...] Dare Obasanjo wrote: > 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. That infoset is an abstract content model, or a plain ole syntax tree. Drop the 'XML'; it's superfluous.
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