- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 02:11:12 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3589 ------- Comment #3 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2006-09-06 02:11 ------- Note that the wording cited in comment #2 makes a hash of the claim that the XML Schema spec does not define an XML transfer syntax, which was the initial premise of the issue. If the XML representation is normative, then clearly the spec defines an XML transfer syntax, not solely an infoset which may be transferred in any way found convenient. Since interoperability is not served by infosets (which are abstractions independent of any testable representation like APIs or data formats), the sentence quoted cannot reasonably be taken to be describing the *infoset*. The sentence clearly says that the XML representation is normative. As for Noah's attachment to the idea that the infoset is the key thing, not the XML form, it's a touching thought, but hardly relevant to this issue, since nothing said so far has entailed any suggestion to the contrary. As for replacing the phrase "XML representation" with the phrase "XML Infoset conveying the Representation", I do not think it's an editorial improvement and don't believe it would make our spec easier to read, understand, or reason about.
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 02:11:34 UTC