i note that the draft describes the infoset rather than defining it in
the standard way. is there a reason for this decision?
I don't know what "the standard way" is you're referring to. Perhaps you
could provide a reference to an RFC where this has been used?
This document is a little unusual in that it's defining a mapping of, if you
will, a non-XML infoset onto XML. As such, the natural approach seemed to be to
first discuss the structure of the language being mapped, then explain the
mapping, and finish up with additional unique-to-XML semantics.
This approach is perhaps not the best choice for someone coming at this trying
to get at Sieve semantics starting with XML, but I believe consumers of the
document with that mindset will be distinctly in the minority. The main focus
here is to provide people familiar with Sieve a means of mapping Sieve to XML
so that XML tools can be applied.
Had this been the more usual case of simply defining an XML formal, I have to
admit that I would have gone with the informal approach used in, say, RFC 2629.
I'm not all that keen on lots of formalism - IMO it often hinders
understanding more than it helps.
Ned