• From: Richard Lanyon <rgl@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:26:14 +0100 (BST)

On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Aaron Skonnard wrote:

> What we really need is the next version of XML ( Infoset + XML 1.0 - DTDs +
> Namespaces + XBase/XInclude + XML Schemas ).

And don't forget XLink as well.

I think the real point with the Infoset is not that it's a grove plan
of XML, but that it expresses a particular view of what are the
"really important" bits of the whole XML + Namespaces + Xfoo standards
collection, in a way which fits with the DOM and/or SAX that most
people are using to process this stuff. Issuing a new version of XML
with all the Xfoo standards added might not work, as it could quite
easily prevent XML being a subset of SGML.

-- 
Richard Lanyon (Software Engineer) |     "The medium is the message"
XML Script development,            |             - Marshall McLuhan
DecisionSoft Ltd.                  |

• References:
  • RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML -FinalReviewDraft)
    • From: Aaron Skonnard <aarons@d...>

• Prev by Date: DOCTYPE replacement kit
• Next by Date: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Previous by thread: Re: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML -FinalReviewDraft)
• Next by thread: Re: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML -FinalReviewDraft)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread