W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

RE: Let's get some principles nailed down

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:26:32 -0500
To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "WWW-Tag" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF1A530652.D97BDA77-ON85256C79.0075A139@lotus.com>

Well, a DOM reflects an Infoset.  Just as I would discourage applications 
from deriving semantics from the non-Infoset visible aspects of a 
serialization (e.g.  choice of single or double quotes on attribute 
values), I would discourage applications from attributing semantics to 
whatever the DOM may provide for content over and above infoset.  Using 
DOM is fine, of course, and the fact that DOM allows some utiltity 
functions like limited query on the Infoset is cool.  Does this make 

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

"Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
11/22/2002 01:04 PM

        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
        cc:     "WWW-Tag" <www-tag@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: Let's get some principles nailed down

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 7:58 PM
> To: Tim Bray
> Cc: WWW-Tag
> (...and then we have to clean up the mess that we have both 
> an Infoset and an XPath data model that are gee, almost the 
> same but not quite.)

What about the XML DOM? Is that not an XML data model as well? 

Nature is a mother. 

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 16:27:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:55 UTC