Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Brownell scripsit: > 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: Very good. You invent the principles, I'll design the data model, and we can call it "Infoset, Part 2". > 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. Either DOM's way or the highway, and we chose the highway. So it goes. (This is not a criticism of the DOM WG, which had their own special constraints to satisfy.) > 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. Yup. We are, after all, dealing with SGML, devised by a lawyer from a common-law (i.e. explicitly anti-theoretical) tradition. -- John Cowan cowan@c... One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter
|
