- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:38:06 -0400
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
- Cc: mnot@mnot.net, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Rich Salz writes: >> In particular, the idea of "describe the >> abstract data" and then "describe >> particular syntax in detail" scares >> me. Good, I think we have the right issues on the table now. I think we both agree on what is possible and why, and now it's a question of whether the extra layer of abstraction clouds or clarifies the implementations that people will be building. For me, it is a little hard to reason about certain forms of compressed or otherwise optimized XML without reference to the Infoset. It's quite reasonable in that case to assume that at no place in the implementation, from API (e.g. DOM) to bits on the wire, did the "<" exist. For that reason, I think I find it more straightforward to reason about the Infoset. I think I am reading you to say: look, this Infoset stuff is very abstract when an implementor is trying to figure out what belongs on the wire, keep it simple and direct. If I have understood you correctly, I think those are two reasonable positions to have on the table for comparison. Although I lean toward Infoset, I don't think the choice is entirely obvious. The arguments against definitely include the ones you give. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 2 July 2001 11:43:31 UTC