• To: 'Mark Baker' <distobj@a...>
• Subject: RE: What is "the Web"
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:28:04 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

What works works.  What I understand better 
now is the useful boundary of the abstraction. 
It tells me when to stop asking questions or 
expecting useful answers.

But I am just as paranoid as Bray about what 
happens if the syntax anchor is pulled out. 
The utility of that is undeniable.  For my 
money, when the syntax goes away, it quits 
being XML, the point being, the infoset 
abstraction does not shrink the space of 
needed processing resources as well as the 
syntax does.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@a...]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 12:59:27PM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> The problem with this question is in agreeing on a  
> representation for any thing in the set of all things. 

Rather than down that path/rathole, I'd be happy to declare concensus on
your previous statement about "all things representable".  Works for me.

• Follow-Ups:
  • syntax (was RE: What is "the Web")
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: What is "the Web"
• Next by Date: syntax (was RE: What is "the Web")
• Previous by thread: Re: What is "the Web"
• Next by thread: syntax (was RE: What is "the Web")
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread