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

RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1

• To: "Marcus Carr" <mcarr@a...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@g...>
• Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:19:01 +0200
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3CABB8AB.AD2166E3@a...>

> From: Marcus Carr [mailto:mcarr@a...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 4:22 AM
> To: Michael Brennan
> Cc: Adam Turoff; xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  WD for Namespaces 1.1
>
>
>
> Michael Brennan wrote:
>
> > This is totally bogus. Current market-leading XML parsers have
> support for
> > XML Schema and namespaces, as well as supporting DTDs. Your
> argument that
> > vendors will abandone DTD support if XML 1.1 rolls in namespace support
> > flies in the face of what vendors have already done. There is nothing to
> > support such an assertion. It is simply unfounded paranoia.
>
> No, it's based on history. If XML is SGML, where are all of the new SGML
> parsers? Of course, nobody wrote them - they dove straight in and
> supported XML
> only. A v1.1 parser will need to have inbuilt namespace support
> and since DTDs
> and namespaces don't play, it's reasonable to assume that some
> v1.1 parsers
> won't bother to support DTDs. Why would they? Why would v1.1
> mandate that they
> should? DTDs would be dead in the water once v1.1 came in, and a lot of
> currently functioning systems would have to be frozen at v1.0.

Can you *name* a currently supported validating XML 1.0 processor which
doesn*t support namespaces already?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Marcus Carr <mcarr@a...>

• References:
  • Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Marcus Carr <mcarr@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by Date: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Previous by thread: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread