Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Options in XML 1.0
 Simon St.Laurent wrote: > > Eliminating DTDs is _not_ my solution, nor is 'something to that effect'. > I asked a question about the current layering (or non-layering) approach > within XML 1.0 parsers, pointed out that it has significant > interoperability implications, and suggested that maybe this is worth > closer examination. > > Acknowledging problems is the first step toward creating solutions, I > think, and we're getting there - if you'll drop the overheated rhetoric. Perhaps my statements are a bit overheated on rereading. I do agree that there is a logical distinction between the text substitution function of entities and validation as both are used in DTDs. If you aren't suggesting eliminating DTDs altogether, you seem to suggest the elimination of many uses of the internal subset. In terms of interoperability and in light of John Cowan's comments on parsers returning portions of the Infoset, let me posit that true interoperability is enabled by parsers which return the entire Infoset (and recognize that the Infoset is a subset of the full XML grove). You may argue that the Common XML subset of the XML grove is a more appropriate subset, and a priori there is no way to determine what the one and only proper subset is. On the other hand if we look to SAX, the DOM and XPath as a baseline, the object model of these already widely implemented and used technologies roughly fits with the XML Infoset and so I agree that it is a reasonable baseline to expect parsers to conform to. Another way of saying this is that I expect my parsers to report all infoset items and don't mind if they fail to report XML productions which aren't in the infoset. Suppose we have two parsers each which return the full infoset, would there be an interoperability problem? > > > I say that such a solution does not "fix" XML 1.0 so much as > >redefine XML into something else than XML. XML is XML warts and all. > > Anything which 'fixes' XML has this problem, and there's no way around > that. That doesn't mean it isn't worth considering. For example, the W3C > seems rather intent on fixing various other parts of XML 1.0, with > Namespaces/XInclude/Schemas/etc., often in ways which don't work play very > nice with XML 1.0. I don't see a lot of complaining about that. Actually I think there is a surprising hesitence to use recs like XML Names and on. Personally I don't mind x,y, or z as long as it doesn't limit my use of XML 1.0 as it stands today ... or as sung by Dired Straits "I want my .. PE" :-)) Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
