- From: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 20:58:06 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> If i interpret the intent of the infoset correctly, it is a > definitive description of the XML syntax, so that one may describe > XML without delving into the details of that syntax. You must have made a typo and meant a different word for the first time you used syntax (in the second line). Otherwise, sorry, but I can't make any sense *at all* of what this might mean. > Rather, it should use the > framework that has been provided - Infoset - to express how to use > it. I disagree, for the reasons listed in my original note. I'll re-emphasize that the Infoset is completely devoid of syntax -- the first appearance of "<" is in the non-normative appendix C. As the very first line of the Infoset CR says, "it defines an abstract data set." But if you're defining a network protocol, then you MUST define syntax;. You must MAKE EXPLICIT the bits on the wire. > Otherwise, to use the most simple example, if we define an attribute > as > > <foo soap:mustUnderstand="bar"> > > is an implementation to assume that > > <foo soap:mustUnderstand='bar'> > > is illegal? Oh, nonsense. The XML spec makes it clear. Actually, your example should help make it clear why -- for a network protocol -- the Infoset is a lose: it doesn't answer that question. It doesn't even come close. /r$ -- Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures, Encryption) http://www.zolera.com
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2001 20:57:07 UTC