- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 18:16:14 -0700
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 08:58:06PM -0400, Rich Salz wrote: > > 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. Indeed; that's what I get for writing e-mail late at night. The Abstract says it well enough; [The Infoset] provides a set of definitions for use in other specifications that need to refer to the information in an XML document. > 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. The syntax of XML messages is documented in the XML specification. The Infoset gives a standard and more precise means of referring to the syntactic constructs defined there, for use in other specifications. I fail to see why using well-thought-out terms to refer to the documented syntax of an XML document is 'bad for implementors'. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2001 21:16:18 UTC