Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@m...> To: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...> Cc: <xml-dev@l...> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 3:16 PM > At 12:48 PM -0400 4/12/04, Karl Waclawek wrote: > > > >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 > > Correct. It does not make use of the Infoset abstraction. It makes > use of the SAX abstraction which is related to but not the same as > the Infoset abstraction. It probably makes use of a subset of the SAX > abstraction. Formally it is not the same, I guess. However, it seems to me that whenever I am referring to an XML document that does not (yet) exist in a (necessarily) abstract way, I am creating some sort of Infoset-like abstraction. That is close enough for me - the difference doesn't really matter. Actually, the SAX abstraction alone may be rather impractical. I would find it hard to map my proprietary object model directly to SAX without coming up with some Infoset-like abstraction first, even if it is not formalized. Karl
|
