XML Information Set is seeding impenetrable language; reconsider?

[Nils Klarlund]

> Nils Klarlund wrote:
>
> > Although the document is cleanly written, it introduces some very
> > cumbersome language,
>
> The author (me) wished to avoid using either "tree" or "grove", both of
> which have highly partisan implications, and therefore used a neutral
> terminology of "information items".  This *is* cumbersome, and I tried
> to abbreviate it to "info items" but was overruled.
>

John, I respectfully disagree.  The concept "tree" is an elementary
one, that you'll find scattered around introductory text books in
computer science.  I don't find it loaded at all.  No more than "list"
or "string".

> The DOM needs to make compromises for the sake of implementation, and
> only handles part of the information content of an XML document.
> (This is being remedied in DOM Levels 2 and 3, but they are not
> finished yet.)
>
That's interesting. Your remark in the parentheses seems like an argument
for
explaining "Information Set"  in terms of DOM.   Then
"Information Set"  could be become "Canonical DOM"  and everybody would be
able
 to talk about element nodes and attribute nodes and so forth.  I  think
that
 would make people a lot happier.

> If by "finer" you mean better, that's a matter of opinion.  If you
> mean "more detailed", not necessarily.  Infoset represents things that
> are not in DOM at all.

I meant "more detailed"!  Could you elaborate on your last sentence,
please (if it applies to DOM2,3)?  Thanks,

/Nils


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.