• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:48:36 -0400
• References: <003801c42009$028d36a0$650aa8c0@BOBDEV> <p06010203bca0351c3b8f@[192.168.254.88]> <407AB83A.9070106@s...> <2FA21B69-8C9B-11D8-BC49-000A95A51C9E@t...>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>
To: "Dennis Sosnoski" <dms@s...>
Cc: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@m...>; <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 12:05 PM

> Two interesting questions are "Which specifications make no use of the 
> Infoset abstraction" (answer: I could go with "a few" or "too many") 
> and "Which applications make no use of the Infoset abstraction (answer: 
> "most").  -Tim

What does it mean "making use of the Infoset abstraction"?

As an example, would you say that an application which generates
SAX call-backs from an internal proprietary object model, for the
purpose of validation (or serialization), does *not* make use of
the Infoset abstraction?
It sure makes use of *some* abstraction, as it has to interpret a
proprietary data structure as if it was an XML document.

Karl

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>
  • RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@s...>
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Next by Date: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e
• Previous by thread: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Next by thread: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread