• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: "xml-dev@x..." <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 16:13:15 -0400

At 04:05 PM 8/3/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>>  "Any app can add its
>> own items and properties" is great - but it's not a standard.  We can do
>> the same thing and talk about it completely differently.
>
>XSchema, for example, does so, and standardizes the "Infoset additions"
>it makes.  Conformance requires documentation.

Conformance requires more than _just_ documentation.  

If documentation is all that's required, why have an Infoset?

Either define abstractions for XML or don't - presenting a subset and
claiming that no more is needed because anyone can 'fix in documentation'
doesn't make sense.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• 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