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

RE: Why the Infoset?

• From: johns@s... (John F. Schlesinger)
• To: "'W. E. Perry'" <wperry@f...>, 'XML DEV' <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:47:47 -0400

Walter Perry wrote:
"I shall therefore withhold further public questioning of the Infoset
initiative and hereby apologize to any who feel that I have abused the
bandwidth of this list with a rant."

I for one did not consider any of what you wrote to be a 'rant' and was
dismayed to see such a value judgement enter into the argument.

Yours,
John F Schlesinger
SysCore Solutions
212 619 5200 x 219
917 886 5895 Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: W. E. Perry [mailto:wperry@f...]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 6:13 AM
To: XML DEV
Subject: Re: Why the Infoset?


John Cowan wrote:

> If you want to interpret the following XML documents differently (one per
line):
>
>         <foo bar="baz">
>         <foo bar='baz'>
>         <foo bar='b&#97;z'>
>         <foo bar='b&#x61;z'>
>         <foo bar="b&#x61;z">
>
> by all means don't let *me* stop you.

Before John Cowan's response, I would have replied to Jonathan Borden's
assertion

> Except for imposing XML namespace conformance, the Infoset places few
constraints on an XML document. Indeed
> it does not force you to even use XML names, the only constraint is a
syntactic one, of explicitly not allowing ':' within element names except as
> specified in XML names.
>
that the advocates of the Infoset do not claim so little for their creature.
During
the xml-uri debate John Cowan--eloquently, I thought--argued consistently
and
tenaciously over a very long time that, as editor of the Infoset, he could
not
finesse the hard questions of interpretation precisely because the Infoset
demanded
specific semantic resolution of processing issues (see particularly his
replies to
Simon St.Laurent at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0094.html,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0128.html and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0469.html).

Among what I took to be the specific semantics elaborated by the new Infoset
draft,
I am particularly troubled by the abstract nature imputed to the concepts
parent/child and document order. Syntactically understood, these may be
simple
physical accidents of the serial nature of documents. Their semantic
significance on
the occasion of any particular processing, however, may be either less
(i.e., for
the purposes of the moment, element containment and/or ordinality don't
really
matter) or very much more (because additional semantics are elaborated from,
or
demanded by, the processing of links, transforms, etc.) than the property
values
assigned under the Infoset. Why then insist in the Infoset on particular
standard
semantics which are likely to be beside the point for the specific, salient
semantics of the processing instance?

Perhaps I am over-rationalizing and would be better served to resist less,
as I have
been advised. I shall therefore withhold further public questioning of the
Infoset
initiative and hereby apologize to any who feel that I have abused the
bandwidth of
this list with a rant.

Respectfully,

Walter Perry

• References:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by Date: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Previous by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread