• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: The subsetting has begun
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:35:02 +0000
• Cc: Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>, "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B54D2A@R...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>  However as many proposals for
> alternate syntaxes for XML (including binary ones) have shown this
> doesn't mean that XML infosets necessarily have to be
> UnicodeWithAngleBrackets. 

That infoset is an abstract content model, or a plain ole syntax 
tree. Drop the 'XML'; it's superfluous.

Bill de hÓra

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • RE: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Next by Date: RE: DOM support in IE vs. NS
• Previous by thread: Re: Infoset vs pure syntax permathread (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• Next by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread