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

FW: Arrgh! - FW: Call for unifying and clarifying XML 1.0, DOM, XPATH, a

• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:07:01 -0500

[This is not my own posting - I'm forwarding this for someone who's stuck
off the list until the OASIS transfer is complete.]

From: Kevin Williams <Kevin.Williams@u...>

>Here are the issues I have with Nils' comments:
>
>1. The Infoset is not the same as the DOM. The Infoset does not imply a tree
>structure. The Infoset should never imply a tree structure, as it's intended
>to describe the behavior of non-node-oriented processors such as SAX.
>2. Attributes are different than other nodes. An attribute by itself is
>meaningless - it needs to be associated with an element. Attributes are
>unordered. I believe the W3C made the right call by making attributes not
>children of the elements with which they are associated.
>3. The term "information item" is a necessary one because of the overuse of
>other synonyms (such as element, attribute, and so on) in the DOM
>specifications. Information items are none of these.
>4. Nils appears to be obsessed with terminology in the XML 1.0
>specification, which is significantly out of date at this point. The newer
>drafts should be taken as the "official" W3C position - there's just not
>anyone providing errata to the original document to keep it in line. For
>example, the current way of thinking says that there's a Document node,
>which must have exactly one Element child node. XML 1.0 says something
>slightly different, but that's not important.
>
>While I agree that the W3C specifications can go a little heavy on the
>jargon, I think that the way the specifications are constructed is necessary
>and correct. The last thing we need is to see all of these different specs
>munged together into one "unified" specification that limits the available
>functionality of XML as it exists today. Perhaps Nils would be happier with
>SML, with no pesky attributes to worry about...
>
>- Kevin
>
>Kevin Williams
>Ultraprise Corporation (www.ultraprise.com)
>Co-author, _Professional XML_ (Wrox Press)

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Unsubscribe by posting to majordom@i... the message
unsubscribe xml-dev  (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email@your-subscribed-address

Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: FW: Arrgh! - FW: Call for unifying and clarifying XML 1.0,DOM, XPATH, and XML Infoset
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Arrgh! - FW: Call for unifying and clarifying XML 1.0, DOM, XPATH, and XML Infoset
    • From: "Nils Klarlund" <klarlund@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Attribute normalisation and character entities
• Next by Date: Auxiliary parses/subdocuments in XML
• Previous by thread: Call for unifying and clarifying XML 1.0, DOM, XPATH, and XML Infoset
• Next by thread: Re: Arrgh! - FW: Call for unifying and clarifying XML 1.0, DOM, XPATH, and XML Infoset
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread