[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: XML Infoset vs XML Tagged Text

To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XML Infoset vs XML Tagged Text
From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:29:49 +0200
Cc: "'ietf-xml-use@xxxxxxx'" <ietf-xml-use@xxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-use/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-xml-use.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-xml-use-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: Canon Research Centre France
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-ietf-xml-use@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020611

Well, if you consider that XML Infoset = XML + Namespace, and that it establishes a well-defined, non ambiguous terminology, you would want precisely to do that.

Jean-Jacques.

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

I'd avoid any language which appears to privilege the XML Infoset, and can't imagine why anyone would want to inject that into protocol discussion anyway.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: XML Infoset vs XML Tagged Text
  - From: Simon St.Laurent

References:
- XML Infoset vs XML Tagged Text
  - From: Doug Ransom
- Re: XML Infoset vs XML Tagged Text
  - From: Simon St.Laurent

Prev by Date: RE: your comments on 4.6.1 Namespaces and Attributes
Next by Date: RE: your comments on 4.6.1 Namespaces and Attributes
Previous by thread: Re: XML Infoset vs XML Tagged Text
Next by thread: Re: XML Infoset vs XML Tagged Text
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread