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

Re: The subsetting has begun

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: The subsetting has begun
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:31:19 -0500
• Disposition-notification-to: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACF97@h...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACF97@h...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.4.3

On Monday 24 February 2003 04:17 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Thanks Gavin.  For the kinds of subsets being
> discussed, is a 'syntax-only' specification
> the only kind of spec needed?   I grant
> that works for XML but it opens up the
> question, is a proper subset of XML 1.0
> really what is being asked for by those
> asking for a subset?  Or are they asking
> for a syntax subset plus a matching infoset?

This is actually the reason for a syntax-only approach in the core. In each 
application domain, the required information differs: a SOAP message has a 
different structure than a serialized JavaBean, for example. As such, I don't 
see a need for a canonical information set/data model in the core, because 
that is NOT where interoperability between application occurs. 

That said, I *do* think there is value in having at least one "canonical" 
standardized information set (probably more if you take each application 
domain into the pitcure), if only for testing purposes and in order to make 
sure that everyone is using the same terminology.

The generic XML processor is a myth once you get past the syntax.

• References:
  • RE: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Next by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Previous by thread: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Next by thread: FW: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread