• From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
• Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 02:14:26 +0800

Sean McGrath 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. 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.
 
Can you give an example?  By XML processing application, do you mean "an
application that processes XML-encoded text" or "an application that
processes the results of XML-parsing an instance"?  The infoset only
needs cover the latter.


Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML in Office 200X
• Next by Date: Re: entity reference
• Previous by thread: RE: Why the Infoset?
• Next by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread