Altova Mailing List Archives
Re: Why the Infoset?
To: Sean McGrath <sean@--------.--->
Date: 8/3/2000 11:08:00 AM
Sean McGrath wrote: > The W3C infoset work seems to be to bless two levels > of abstraction: > a) XML entities are a stream of bytes > b) XML entities consist of elements,attributes,data ... > (all the stuff in the Infoset doc) Actually, there are (a1) the byte level and (a2) the character level. Both are important. > (X) This is the space where what SGML called > "markup sensitive" apps. live. Apps that care about the > difference between "Hello world" and "&greeting;". > Apps that care about default attribute values etc. etc. > > (Y) This is the space where high fidelity roundtripping apps > live. Apps that care about the difference between: > <name first = "Sean" last = "Mc Grath"/> > and: > <name > last = 'Mc Grath' > first = 'Sean'></name> I think it's pretty arbitrary of you to call the Y level "high fidelity", just as it's arbitrary for me to call the b level "the Infoset". But we both agree that a line must be drawn somewhere. > There needs to be N infosets (N > 1) to cover > the range of application types people build with > XML. We used to have that explicitly, with a "minimal infoset", a "maximal infoset" and every possible infoset in between. It was a mess to describe. Now we have: 1) one standard infoset 2) conformance means documentation of what you provide and what you don't 3) any app can add its own info items and properties (right down to the a level if you want) 4) the "core conformance" infoset is one possible subset -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)