[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: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:55:34 -0500

At 12:02 AM 11/11/00 +0800, Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
>The innovation that Mike is talking about, the ability to use the name
>of a clearly specified technology developed by a known group of people
>with a known set of intents, but alter it in any way that one sees fit,
>might be called "lying" by some, and "passing off" by others, but most
>importantly is also called "embrace and extend".  

Sounds like it was a very good thing that the SGML Editorial Review Board
transmogrified into the XML Working Group, or we might have people
complaining that XML itself commits these very crimes against SGML.

Perhaps the real crime XML itself commits is the nurturing of "80/20" as a
workable approach to solving problems more easily, making it clear to a
wide audience that there's room to cut more fat and still still have muscle.  

XML itself isn't exactly seen as fat-free, leaving room for more 80/20 and
yet more 80/20.  Tough problem, but basically self-inflicted.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

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

• References:
  • Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
    • From: Mike.Champion@S...
  • Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
• Next by Date: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
• Previous by thread: 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