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

Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)

• From: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:40:20 +0000

Mike Champion wrote:
>First, it is non-trivial to move from "Common XML" to full XML support. I
had the
>opportunity to observe a >project in which an XML novice built successive
> iterations of an XML system.

I agree it is not trivial to implement a full XML parser, but the experience
of a novice individual is irrelevant.
The Full XML 1.0 recommendation, complex as it is, does not appear to be
acting as a barrier to entry for serious tool vendors.

 >Second, should XML 1.0 be seen as simply a Recommendation from a group of
> experienced SGML >users/developers, or does it really have standing as a
> Real Standard?

I believe that XML 1.0 needs to be treated as a de-facto standard.  This is
the only way to
(a) achieve the kind of interoperability that the industry is seeking
(b) avoid undermining the other technology that is being built on top of it.
It is only because XML 1.0 has remained stable for a while now that other
"standards" (such as xhtml) can be created.   I for one am grateful that
most vendors seem to agree with this premise and put a lot of effort into
achieving (and boasting about) conformance.

 Regards
Rob Lugt
ElCel Technology

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Simplicity of XPath
• Next by Date: Re: Simplicity of XPath
• Previous by thread: Forget yee not the DOCTYPE, was Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE:Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Next by thread: Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread