• To: "'Elliotte Harold'" <elharo@m...>
• Subject: RE: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" myth come from?
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:50:09 -0000
• Cc: "'Bob Foster'" <bob@o...>,"'Ronald Bourret'" <rpbourret@r...>,"'XML Developers List'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <420C0FC3.8000906@m...>
• Thread-index: AcUP3EqsR7FFdSAcRu698/RHjvSi5wAOgNUA

> > Of course it doesn't. The biggest single failing in the XML 
> spec, sadly
> > unremedied in subsequent versions, is that it doesn't 
> define the information
> > content of an XML document. Without that "lossless" cannot 
> be defined, and
> > it can't be defined, then it can't be achieved.
> 
> Certainly it could be achieved. You could define a 1-1 
> mapping from the 
> binary format to the actual bytes or characters of an XML 
> document. This 
> would preserve a lot of things most people don't care about like 
> attribute order, numeric character references, and white space in the 
> prolog, but it would preserve everything that anyone cares about.

Except the base URI and the media type, perhaps?

Michael Kay

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Assigning meaning to an element if attributes are present
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread