• To: michael.h.kay@n...
• Subject: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: pdurusau@e..., jeni@j... ('Jeni Tennison'), wperry@f... ('W. E. Perry'), xml-dev@l... ('XML DEV')
• In-reply-to: <000401c26ece$ff085650$6401a8c0@pcukmka> from "Michael Kay" at Oct 08, 2002 02:31:23 PM

Michael Kay scripsit:

> The problem is that it should have an underlying model, but it hasn't:
> it only has a "overlying" model (the InfoSet) that is retrofitted to the
> syntax. The fact that the model is retrofitted rather than being a
> normative part of XML means that questions like "are comments
> significant" have never been satisfactorily answered. 

The Infoset isn't a model, it's a rag-bag of terminology.
See (randomly chosen!) .sig below.

And as for whether comments are significant, the question to ask is
"Significant to whom?"  They're not significant to me, but YMMV.

> If people had defined the model before
> defining the syntax we wouldn't be in this mess.

No, we'd be in analysis paralysis, with no syntax and no tools.

-- 
Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML	John Cowan
Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker	jcowan@r...
saying "No information items inside".		http://www.reutershealth.com
	--Eve Maler				http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

• References:
  • RE: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Non XML syntaxes
• Next by Date: Re: <!-- -- -->
• Previous by thread: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Next by thread: Re: RE: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread