What works works. What I understand better
now is the useful boundary of the abstraction.
It tells me when to stop asking questions or
expecting useful answers.
But I am just as paranoid as Bray about what
happens if the syntax anchor is pulled out.
The utility of that is undeniable. For my
money, when the syntax goes away, it quits
being XML, the point being, the infoset
abstraction does not shrink the space of
needed processing resources as well as the
syntax does.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:]
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 12:59:27PM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> The problem with this question is in agreeing on a
> representation for any thing in the set of all things.
Rather than down that path/rathole, I'd be happy to declare concensus on
your previous statement about "all things representable". Works for me.
