On 11/15/13 12:01 PM, David Sheets wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Simon St.Laurent <> wrote:
>> On 11/15/13 11:45 AM, David Sheets wrote:
>>>
>>> Please direct me to the relevant source that refutes that XML was
>>> "designed for nodes".
>>
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210>
>>
>> One mention of 'node', in a non-normative appendix using other people's
>> terminology. That hasn't changed in more recent versions or in XML 1.1.
>
> Ah, I understand the difficulty. I believe I should have said
> "elements". I was thinking in terms of generic trees and picked the
> word "node" instead. Are "nodes" substantially different from
> "elements" in this context?
----------------------------------
The terms "information set" and "information item" are similar in
meaning to the generic terms "tree" and "node", as they are used in
computing. However, the former terms are used in this specification to
reduce possible confusion with other specific data models. Information
items do not map one-to-one with the nodes of the DOM or the "tree" and
"nodes" of the XPath data model.
----------------------------------
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/>
>> There may have been people thinking of nodes, but "designed for nodes" is
>> ridiculous.
>
> Is "designed for elements" ridiculous?
Less ridiculous, but still not a clean mapping to the programming
concepts you were pushing earlier.
--
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/
