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

Re: is XML complete?

• To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: Re: is XML complete?
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:53:09 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: simonstl@s..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1ba.904986d.2afac8d3@a...> from "AndrewWatt2000@a..." at Nov 06, 2002 02:34:43 PM

AndrewWatt2000@a... scripsit:

> >No, I just take a slightly narrower view of what XML is.
> 
> Can you explain why linking and styling are "in" this narrower view and other 
> things not?

Historical grounds, primarily.  The original SGML-on-the-Web was to
have three phases:  syntax (based on SGML), linking (based on HyTime),
and style (based on DS*L).

> Might this not be a fairly arbitrary definition of where the boundaries of 
> XML should be drawn?

All boundaries are arbitrary.

> If XML 1.0 had had a clear data model then we might not have the assortment 
> of DOM, XPath 1.0, XML Infoset, PSVI, AABSABI and the XQuery data model. It 
> would have made life a heck of a lot simpler to have a single, 
> well-thought-out data model.

Which would have delayed the release of XML 1.0 by probably five years.

-- 
Winter:  MIT,                                   John Cowan
Keio, INRIA,                                    jcowan@r...
Issue lots of Drafts.                           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
So much more to understand!                     http://www.reutershealth.com
Might simplicity return?                        (A "tanka", or extended haiku)

• References:
  • Re: is XML complete?
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: is XML complete?
• Next by Date: Re: is XML complete?
• Previous by thread: Re: is XML complete?
• Next by thread: Re: is XML complete?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread