- 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>
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 sense? ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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? -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM Nature is a mother. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 16:27:27 UTC