• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:16:42 -0700

At 09:55 AM 28/10/00 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>I begin to think that XML vocabularies should take example on XML itself
>and that when designing a vocabulary one should start by defining the
>infoset (the data model), a canonical form (a very strict syntax) before
>defining one (or more if needed) "user XML syntax(es)" and canonization
>algorithms with reference implementation(s).

Er, this might indeed be a good idea, but XML itself does not serve
as a supporting example.  The XML syntax was designed first.  The
infoset came later.  Some people are horrified at this, feeling that
the infoset (or grove, depending on your religion) is The Real Thing 
and the syntax merely an ephemeral expression of it.  I disagree, but 
that horse's corpse lies about 100,000 messages back on the xml-dev 
trail, having been beaten to horse tartare. -T

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Must DTDs constrain order?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • Re: Must DTDs constrain order?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Must DTDs constrain order?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Must DTDs constrain order?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: duplicate messages
• Next by Date: RE: XML Schemas: the wrong name
• Previous by thread: Re: Must DTDs constrain order?
• Next by thread: Re: Must DTDs constrain order?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread