[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Great controversies of XML

• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:47:01 -0500

At 03:09 PM 1/13/00 -0800, Andrew Layman wrote:
>Maybe Namespaces should occupy the top five slots. :-)

#1 was originally Namespaces, Namespaces, Namespaces, but I thought maybe
that was a little harsh.  But maybe not!

David Megginson wrote:
>verbosity (binary formats and compression), mixed
>content, schema/DTD repositories, comments, processing instructions,
>character encodings, data typing, document and schema composition, the
>single root element, required end tags, packaging multi-part
>documents, etc. etc.

Er, uh, yeah.  That's a fine list.  I was thinking a little more in terms
of using XML than what went in the spec (otherwise I'd include notations
and unparsed entities), but that's got lots.

I wish I was better at coming up with nice phrases like 'data kidnap' and
'data lockout' to keep up with Rick Jelliffe, but we're off to a fine start!

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
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.

• References:
  • RE: Great controversies of XML
    • From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Great controversies of XML
• Next by Date: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article
• Previous by thread: RE: Great controversies of XML
• Next by thread: Re: Great controversies of XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread