• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: "xml-dev@x..." <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 17:05:41 -0400

At 04:58 PM 8/3/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
>
>> Either define abstractions for XML or don't
>
>The Infoset *does* define abstractions for XML.  It doesn't define
>every possible abstraction for XML.

More to the point, it doesn't define abstractions for all of XML, leaving
them as 'fix in documentation' for those who need more than the Infoset
currently provides. As the Infoset itself is basically documentation, this
doesn't seem reasonable.

'Every possible abstraction' for XML is more possibilities than I think
either of us care to think about.

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: Richard Lanyon <rgl@d...>

• 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: "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