I'm not so sure.  As Tim said, it is a convenient 
abstraction for the spec writer, and pertinent to 
this thread, if the SOAP spec is written in terms 
of an infoset, one might assume that a discussion 
of a subset to meet SOAP's requirements would also 
require a description of the infoset.  That could 
be a flawed assumption but part of the reason for 
this thread from my perspective is to discover what 
is an isn't strictly necessary to meet the requirements 
for XML subsets.    XML 1.0 does not discuss 
the infoset.  That's a different specification.  If 
SOAP is an infoset based specification, why do they 
need a subset of XML 1.n?  Just from a document 
citation perspective, that doesn't quite make sense.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill de hOra [mailto:bill@[...].net]

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>   However as many proposals for
>  alternate syntaxes for XML (including binary ones) have shown this
>  doesn't mean that XML infosets necessarily have to be
>  UnicodeWithAngleBrackets. 

That infoset is an abstract content model, or a plain ole syntax 
tree. Drop the 'XML'; it's superfluous.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>