• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: vdv@d..., xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:13:59 -0500

Core - XML 1.0 (well-formed and DTD validation)

Extensibility options:

o  Aggregation - XML 1.0 + Namespaces 

o  Modeling - XML 1.0 + Namespaces + XML Schemas

o  System - XML application languages such as RDDL

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@d...]


Not a better, but the same with a shift...

Maybe we should change the name for "Smaller XML" if people won't change
the name for "Greater XML" and just call our downtown XML "core XML" ?

Now, the next problem is what would be "core XML" ?

Would it be XML 1.0, XML 1.0 + namespaces, XML 1.0 + namespaces + W3C
XML Schema, ...

My personal feeling would be that it should be XML 1.0 + namespaces but
I don't think it will make an unanimity!

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
• Next by Date: Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
• Previous by thread: RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Next by thread: Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread