- From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@propylon.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:30:11 -0400 (EDT)
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
At 11:06 02/07/2001 -0400, Rich Salz wrote: >I disagree that the infoset is the best approach. I >believe it's a bad idea. In particular, the idea of "describe the >abstract data" and then "describe particular syntax in detail" scares >me. It makes me think of the old 7layer model. Or describing a stream >protocol in ASN.1 and then saying "the transfer syntax is DER, and we'll >call that binding TCP." > >It is possible to do things that way, but it makes it needlessly >difficult for <emphasize-my-viewpoint>implementors</emph> > /r$ <Delurk> Unfortunately, given the data-model-free nature of XML 1.0 and the hairy complexity of fully-blown post-parse XML 1.0, abstract infoset approaches are probably unavoidable - unless one goes for commonXML, microXML or so other syntactic restriction of XML 1.0. The resultant complexity is unfortunate at best <Sigh/>. </Delurk> Sean McGrath
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 13:04:56 UTC