Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...] > Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 08:35 > To: Alessandro Triglia > Cc: 'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'; 'xml-dev' > Subject: Re: The Rising Sun: How XML Binary > Restored the Fortune s of Innovators > > > Alessandro Triglia wrote: > > > > > I am not asserting that all producers of XML fit the above > description, but > > I like thinking that a lot of them do. Otherwise, it > would be hard to > > understand the significance of the XML infoset, the > significance of SAX, the > > significance of XML Schema, etc. The XML infoset is > important, isn't it? > > No, I don't think it is. Outside of the small community of > spec writers > and some implementers, it's hard to think of anybody who really cares > about or even understands the XML infoset. Developers care about the > data models exposed by DOM, SAX, XPath, etc. However, I still believe that there are many **producers** of XML who, in fact, care only about the "infoset" portion of the XML they produce. In other words, they: - don't need the ability to use general entity references - don't need the freedom to choose the nature and amount of whitespace inside tags - don't need the freedom to choose between a starttag/endtag pair or an empty element tag - don't need the freedom to choose between apostrophe and quote for attributes - don't need the freedom to choose the order of attributes - have no special desire to violate namespace-well-formedness and so on. Those guys will not miss anything if the API they use to produce the XML produces a fast infoset document instead. This is why I said that the infoset is important. The infoset captures all the information content (in an XML document) that many (most?) people care about. Alessandro
|
