• To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@m...>
• Subject: Re: Syntax + object model
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 19:23:09 +0100
• Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C10935B69B@r...>
• Organization: Propylon
• References: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C10935B69B@r...>
• Reply-to: bill.dehora@p...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

Joshua Allen wrote:

> If it's not for XML, then what the heck is it for?  If it's not a data
> model, then what the heck is it?
 >
> Any sane person can see that it specifies a data model for XML.

You're just quntifying the scope of the XPath data model differently 
to Simon. Simon seems to be saying XPath's model of XML is for the 
benefit of allowing the evaluation XPath expressions (that's pretty 
much what the recc says).You seem to be saying XPath's model of XML 
is for XML while ignoring the fact it was designed specifically for 
XPath processors, not for anything adn everything that wants to 
process XML (that would be the Infoset I guess). So I don't see any 
need to question people's sanity if they don't share your pov. No 
big deal really.

Bill de hÓra

• References:
  • RE: Syntax + object model
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Syntax + object model
• Next by Date: RE: Re: Syntax + object model
• Previous by thread: RE: Syntax + object model
• Next by thread: RE: Syntax + object model
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread