ASPN ActiveState Programmer Network
ActiveState
/ Home / Perl / PHP / Python / Tcl / XSLT /
/ Safari / My ASPN /
Cookbooks | Documentation | Mailing Lists | Modules | News Feeds | Products | User Groups


Recent Messages
List Archives
About the List
List Leaders
Subscription Options

View Subscriptions
Help

View by Topic
ActiveState
.NET Framework
Open Source
Perl
PHP
Python
Tcl
Web Services
XML & XSLT

View by Category
Database
General
SOAP
System Administration
Tools
User Interfaces
Web Programming
XML Programming


MyASPN >> Mail Archive >> xml-dev
xml-dev
Re: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun
by Gavin Thomas Nicol other posts by this author
Feb 25 2003 7:35PM messages near this date
RE: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun | RE: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 11:28 am, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>  You've said what you think is the right layer of the
>  XML-SW suggestions.  Even given your comments here,
>  do you think an XML-SW plus a matching infoset is
>  worth pursuing in response to the requests for a
>  subset, or is it up to each application to define
>  such? 

I personally don't see the real need for a subset from an application-building 
perspective, but given the amount of consternation other people have, I would 
say there is probably some value in a syntax subset.

Assuming there is to be a subset, it should be just that, a subset. Remove 
anything that is not directly a syntax issue. That'd bring us right down to 
UnicodeAndAngleBrackets.

I have no problem with defining a canonical Infoset/data model, so long as it 
is not part of the syntax specification. In fact, I can easily imagine two: 
one for syntax-driven applications, and one for "structure" driven 
applications.

>  If they do, should they create individualized
>  processors to match their specifications, should they
>  rely on the XML processsor provided in the library
>  of framework objects provided by a vendor, or is this
>  a mix and match challenge?

You'll have to excuse me here, because you're leaping from syntax and infosets 
to software components. That leap is a source of confusion IMHO.

>  To me, it keeps coming back to what services can a
>  programmer reasonably expect of an XML processor.

What is "an XML processor"? A parser? A bean serialization package? SNOBOL? If 
I have a toolkit that parses RTF, but which generates a SAX2 compliant event 
stream, is that "an XML processor"? Is JAXM defined in terms of the XML 
infoset?

FWIW. I think, apart from the obvious beauty and elegance of the XML syntax, 
XML itself offers little to the programmer. I mean, seriously, if you're 
developing a distributed application, do you care that the message is in XML, 
or rather, that you can use JAXM to get the work done? Why?



-----------------------------------------------------------------
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> 
Thread:
Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Gavin Thomas Nicol

Privacy Policy | Email Opt-out | Feedback | Syndication
© ActiveState Software Inc. All rights reserved