On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Richard Knapp wrote:
> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:33:45 -0500 (EST)
> From: Richard Knapp <gyp_caver@yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: cavexml@cartography.ch
> To: "cavexml@cartography.ch" <cavexml@cartography.ch>
> Subject: Re: Stations are primary
>
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 11:17:53 -0500, Ralph Hartley wrote:
>
> >But I can't find anything in
> >
> >http://www.xml.com/axml/testaxml.htm
> >that says that an XML processor must hand them over in any particular
> >order. Considering the density of that document, I could have missed
> >something, in which case please point it out.
>
> It seems some of this might have split out under the XML-InfoSet Spec
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xml-infoset-20010202).
By the way, it is nice to see someone actually going out and reading
up on the standard. My cronic complaint is the discussions that
argue how something should be without any background.
It is VERY nice to see someone filling in their background.
> Under section 2.1:
>
> "1. [childern] An order list of child information items, in document order"
>
> This is repeated under 2.2 #4 as compared to #5
>
> "5. [attributes] An unordered set of attribute information items, one for each of the attributes (specified or
> defaulted from the
> DTD) of this element."
>
> >Is that document not the whole XML spec? It doesn't mention the "DOM",
> >and the behavior of particular implementations (SAX parsers) is not part
> >of a standard unless the standard says so.
>
> I'm still looking into some of this but the XML Info Set seems to be a start.
>
> - Richard Knapp
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 18:00:00 CEST