Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: AN N: RES
 It is the one way to ensure less bloat while enabling interoperability by choice rather than fiat. X3D is working out a component profile mechanism for browsers and authors to use. It's a hassle but the experience was that optionality by profile is a requirement. It takes more than a schema to spec that. I hate the thought of tweaking those declarations probably only less than those who would have to implement them. But on occasion, it was very good to be able to. I expect that as Rick Jeliffe suggested jovially, at some point, someone or some group will go back to SGML and do the subset work again. But not today. My point was, XML is bought based on specific applications and their real benefits. Some of these are small system to system communications. No committees, no requirements to scale to the universe; just the qualified parties. Others really are (eg, HTML, SVG) pieces that solve a problem everyone has, and for these, expect slower progress, interminable haggling, and possibly, that at the other end, only one or two vendors can support it (eg, SVG) so no matter what one says about the spec process, open systems, and so on, the result is that a limited number of sources survive. I don't know if it has to be that way, but the patterns say it is a probable outcome. So again, it is a question of opportunities deferred and having the right reasons. len From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] Lean sounds good. Perhaps it makes sense to require the specifications themselves to come with an explicit set of checkboxes this way? That'd mean developers could: a) see what the options are b) specify what options they use in a way that will be easily understood and shared Hmmm.... maybe we'll get back to the SGML declaration eventually. Us open systems ranters could just take the core set minus all the extra pieces so we didn't have to worry about inconvenient expectations. I suspect that Working Groups will shudder at the thought of any of their precious features being listed as expendable this way, but it's about time for clarity if they aren't willing to throw more things out. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
