Re: XML Infoset vs XML Tagged Text

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 07:00 AM 6/18/2002 -0700, Tim Bray wrote:

> John Cowan wrote:
>
> > It allows the designers of an XML-based protocol not to get involved
> > with the minutiae of "single or double quotes?" "CDATA or <?"
> > etc. etc.
>
> Yes.  I've always seen the main benefit of the infoset as providing 
> authors of specifications an easier way to talk about the contents of XML 
> instances, exactly as John mentions.  It makes all sorts of sense to use 
> the infoset in this way.

If you're fond of "Information Item", I suppose it might be.

>   It makes little sense, in the protocol context, to talk about actually 
> interchanging anything but well-formed XML instances.  From the point of 
> view of the implementor, the XML processor can be relied on to make the 
> issues of quotes and CDATA and so on go away.  -Tim

That's why I don't believe the Infoset has anything special to offer in 
this case.  Unless developers plan on building their own parsers for XML 
protocols, something that's been repeatedly described here as a bad idea, 
they shouldn't have much need for the Infoset.

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue