• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
• Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 14:33:40 +0100

[Michael Kay]
 >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. Even the new
 >versions of the specs (XML 1.1 and Namespaces 1.1) do not refer
 >normatively to the InfoSet, so these questions remain debateable. And
 >the confusion over marginally-significant stuff like CDATA sections,
 >namespace prefixes, and inter-element whitespace continues to cause
 >interoperability nightmares. If people had defined the model before
 >defining the syntax we wouldn't be in this mess.

Amen to that!

Sean

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