• To: "'robin.berjon@e...'" <robin.berjon@e...>, Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: RE: Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:34:02 -0600
• Cc: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>

Actually, no.  What you have is standards as costumes for 
implementations.  The biggest vendor and the vendors 
that vendor allies with wins the prize for best costume 
at the ball.  Sort of a Vincent Price moment for root farmers.

Where is my turtle costume, Ma?

len


From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin.berjon@e...]

> Can the XML world agree on one and only one conception of the Infoset?  
> Interesting question.  Probably "no" if everybody gets a vote and a 
> veto. Probabably "yes" in the sense that once one takes root and the 
> dust settles, the benefits of standardization will outweigh the costs of 
> losing things like one's preferred view of where the namespace 
> information is attached to the Infoset.

Hear, hear!

• Prev by Date: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by Date: Re: Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• Previous by thread: Re: Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• Next by thread: RE: Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: [xm l-dev] The subsetting has begun)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread