Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Sean McGrath <sean@d...> wrote: > At 17:29 01/08/00 +0100, Kay Michael wrote: > >Personally, I don't have any problems identifying the need for the infoset: > >I've seen so many people try to attach meaning to lexical distinctions that > >should not carry meaning that I yearn for an authority I can point to when > >telling them they're wrong. > > But distinctions that are irrelevant for some applications are not > irrelevant for others. That's precisely what the Infoset is trying to *prevent from happening*! > This is the nub of the problem. The infoset > throws certain things away. In so doing, it creates problems > for certain types of XML processing applications. I can think of a couple such applications -- XML editors and XML-aware transcoders come to mind; I certainly don't want an XML editor to arbitrarily rearrange attribute specifications and normalize whitespace in start-tags -- but that only means that XML editors should *not* be Infoset-based applications. What other applications do you have in mind? On the other hand, I don't want to end up building an XML application using Tool X (which uses abstract data model X), only to find out that my documents can't be processed with Tool Y, because my application attached semantic significance to a property that is present in data model X but absent in data model Y. --Joe English jenglish@f...
|
