• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: John Aldridge <john.aldridge@i...>,"xml-dev@x..." <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:58:29 -0400

John Aldridge wrote:

> (b) Every application will have distinct opinions about what constitutes a
> significant difference, so trying to standardise on one set is doomed to
> failure.

For which reason, conformance to the Infoset is defined as documenting
what parts of it you use, and every application is free to add more
stuff as it desires.

"Core" conformance is purely a convenience notion.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Reality Check (was: Why the Infoset?)
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: John Aldridge <john.aldridge@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by Date: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Previous by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by thread: Reality Check (was: Why the Infoset?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread