Only "an" infoset? (Was: Syntax + object model)

From: <>
To
Date: 2003-05-25T09:24:11Z
ID: <>
Thread: Only "an" infoset? (Was: Syntax + object model)

In a message dated 25/05/2003 09:43:56 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Arjun Ray scripsit:

>I think John Cowan once clarified that the Infoset Rec actually specifies
>only "an infoset", and not in any way "the infoset" in some normatively
>exclusive sense (though "derivative" specs of late seem quite eager to
>treat it so).

I don't think I said that.

John,

Doesn't the W3C XML Information Set Recommendation only define "an" infoset?

Since the Rec explicitly eschews being "exhaustive" ... by which I take it to mean it acknowledges not being complete (anticipated usefulness is the expressed criterion for inclusion)... then surely what the Rec defines is only *an* infoset?

In the other direction the PSVI is a different kind of infoset, so demonstrating that the Infoset is only *an* infoset.

Wouldn't you agree?

Of course all that assumes that we know / can agree on what an infoset is in the first place. :)

Andrew Watt
"An infoset means what I intend it to mean, no more and no less." after Humpty Dumpty.

← Prev in month ← Prev in thread

Next in thread → Next in month →