• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: Richard Lanyon <rgl@d...>, "xml-dev@x..." <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 11:15:07 -0400

Richard Lanyon wrote:
 
> Why not? The infoset seems mainly to be a guide for (W3C)
> spec-writers, saying "unless you can think of a good reason otherwise,
> your spec should deal mainly with /this/ level of abstraction of XML
> documents". Most W3C specs (DOM, XPath) do operate at more-or-less the
> same level of abstraction, so using the infoset just takes the
> "more-or-less" bit out and ensures that most future specs operate at
> /exactly/ the same level of abstraction. This seems to me to be rather
> useful.

Almost exactly right, with two caveats:

1) Not only W3C spec-writers, but
other spec-writers, and indeed programmers insofar as they write specs
for their programs, are the intended customers.

2) For "exactly the same level" read "broadly the same level"; some variation
is expected and is supported.

-- 

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)

• References:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Richard Lanyon <rgl@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Eating crow
• Next by Date: Re: W3C, responsibility (Re: Why the Infoset?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by thread: XSet, an XML Property Set, was: re: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread