• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 10:22:14 -0700

And John Cowan's comment explains why:

> But the Infoset is not founded on any real principle at all: its
> design is empirical.

There ought to be some organizing principle behind it.  That'd
be better support for principled improvements/objections/etc ...
What I really wanted out of infoset was such a principled data
model, not a grab-bag, to support what Tim Bray described:

> - we'd like the view of XML offered by DOM, SAX, and any other
>   API to be consistent, and the infoset ought ideally to provide
>   a foundation for maintaining consistency.

Though it doesn't.  For example, it doesn't expose declarations
for parsed entities (as exposed by DOM L1 and SAX2), for
elements, or for attributes; or <![CDATA[ ... ]]> info.

I suspect that we're probably not going to get a more useful
formal XML data model for maintaining such consistency
than what Infoset delivers.  It's better than the XML 1.0 spec
for that purpose, even with its current omissions.

- Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Infoset as subset of useful
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Infoset as subset of useful
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Blueberry (non-ASCII name characters in Japan)
• Next by Date: Re: PSVI
• Previous by thread: Re: Infoset as subset of useful
• Next by thread: Re: Infoset as subset of useful
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread