• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• From: Ian Graham <igraham@i...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:12:29 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <oprk5p7u0yezizxn@s...>
• Reply-to: Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...>

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Mike Champion wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:16:26 -0800, Joe English <jenglish@f...> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Waitaminnit -- since when is SAX "pure syntax"?
> > SAX is the quintessential implementation of the XML Infoset!
> > All non-Infoset syntactic features of the source document
> > are stripped out; the application only sees (a representation
> > of) the abstract information items.
> 
> Joe and Simon are abolutely right.  I don't know what I was thinking ...  
> probably not at all.
> 
> But it further strengthens the argument that essentially nobody except 
> Simon :-) and the proverbial desperate Perl hacker actually works with XML 
> at the pure syntax level....

Um. Well, I guess that's true if you don't count looking at raw XML as
working with it ;-)  Somehow I suspect being able to intuit what's going
wrong in code by looking at (and understanding) the data being read in /
spat out is a huge win.

• References:
  • Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: Thesubsetting has begun)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Next by Date: 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: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread