intertwingly

I don't mind XSD but I'd say building the world would have taken longer than 7 days if He needed to describe it with XSD.

Pingback from TIG's Corner

LOL! Some theologians think that there's a trick with <xs:redefine> in there...

Ok, so I've been slowly coming to the realization that XML Infosets are the new wave and will drown all the OO-infidels. How do I convert? What is a good place to start learning about and using infosets? -- You are a mystery as deep as the sea; the more I search, the more I find, and the more I find the more I search for you. -- St. Catherine of Siena

(Sam, if you see "-- " on a line by itself, you should strip the rest of the message. That is the widely accepted convention for mail processing. <http://www.faqs.org/ftp/usenet/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-05.txt>)

(OK, I added a line to my script to eat everything after a line containing only -- followed optionally by white space (in the email you sent, the actual character sequence was dash dash space))

re: infoset... if you read XML into a DOM, do you informally still refer to what's in memory as XML? Well, XML is defined in terms of angle brackets, so what you are saying is not precisely accurate. And DOM is only the interface, not the underlying data. So, what's the correct name for what's behind the DOM? You guessed it: infoset.

For now, this difference is about as important as the difference between URI and URL. However, some day there may be other interoperable serialization formats without angle brackets.

Fra Sam Ruby: Idolatry: Gordon Weakliem: I'm not prepared to say that XSD is God's own type system. But if... [more]

Trackback from Bredgade 40 Classic