[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark
There is the text and there is the preferred reading. The problem with namespaces is that it is written like it is a syntax spec but hides a preferred reading; that the value is a URI and the URI is dereferenceable if the operator is applied, else, it is just a syntax. Reserving a colon is syntax; saying that what is to the left of the colon is a URI is to spec a control; to spec a control, one spec's semantics. I see it as a vitally important thing to a system definition, but not the syntax. Infoset is a whole other thing, no doubt. James is aiming toward a globally interoperable framework; that is what the WWW is about (saying it is an information space is just another distraction while the knife changes hands), and I don't disagree. A global WWW XML framework is a good goal. I just don't think it is XML. On the other hand, teaching XML without teaching the InfoSet on the first day is like trying to teach someone to fly an airplane without ever telling them what a propellor does. If people want the freedom they claim they want to innovate, then the strictness of these layers is all important. Otherwise, next time MS, or Sun or IBM shovels in a lot more obscured semantics, it's all just quiddities. len From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@c...] [Bullard, Claude L (Len)] > Are these statements consistent? > > "...XML 1.0/XML Namespaces/XML Infoset/XML Base can be integrated without an unreasonable amount of work and that the integration will result in something significantly more coherent than what we have now." > > "...the key lesson is that the lowest layers should deal only with syntax and should be semantically neutral." > Seems to me that XML 1.0 and XML Namespaces can go together as a syntactical layer just fine. I do not quite see it for the infoset, since there is no defined serialization for it. It is true that the infoset is supposed to be a model of those things represented by the syntax of the document, so in that sense it is still syntactical. Maybe that is what James Clarke was thinking of. The infoset tells you what is to be considered important in the syntax and what is not, in an abstract sort of way. It is sort of meta-syntax. Now if we had a Rec that started with the infoset and, after laying it out, said "now here is how we serialize an infoset, and we call it XML", that might be a good approach. But it tends to get away from the idea of marking up documents, doesn't it? "Now let me see, looking and this document, I see a 'para' element information item right over here"... I just doesn't grab me the same way.
|
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
|