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

Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)

• To: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@d...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
• From: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@c...>
• Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:31:28 -0800
• References: <r01050400-1022-B6F13BEB135A11D7B23F0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]> <1040307239.2526.253.camel@ibook>

I agree with Eric here.

No matter how strict and simple "Common XML" standard is
people will always find ways to express same things differently.

But if I know how to translate Simon's knowledge into mine
and Eric's  knowledge into mine, I can set up processes
to accept both and enjoy.

However, if there is another person "X" who
uses tomorrow different syntax to express same meaning
or same syntax to express different meaning, etc...
(i.e. not being conservative)
than the best think I can do is to ignore his/her information at all.

This is actually a topic map authoring in a nut shell. :-))
Indeed, you can use RM4TM to "udermap"
(is it a good neologism ?) any markup.

--Nikita.

Nikita Ogievetsky, nogievet@c...;
Cogitech Inc.        http://www.cogx.com
Topic Maps Tutorials and Consultanting.
phone:  1 (917) 406 - 8734



----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@d...>
To: <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 6:13 AM
Subject: Re:  Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)


> On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 15:03, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>
> > The "troubles" are already built into the XML 1.0 specification, To some
> > extent, I've seen Common XML as a reponse to the conservatism that XML
> > 1.0 _allowed_ for non-validating parsers as regards skipping external
> > DTD subsets and entities.  Much of my motivation in writing Common XML
> > was to show readers how to avoid the landmines produced by tools being
> > conservative in what they accept and perhaps liberal in what they
> > discard.
>
> Isn't it what I have said ;-) ???
>
> The only way to cope with tool which are conservative in what they
> accept and perhaps liberal in what they discard is to be conservative in
> what you send!
>
> In any case, if the industry was going in that direction, we would need
> new types of schema languages: the current ones do filter the structure
> and content of XML documents without filtering any of the basic XML
> features. If XML "sub-profiles" (such as defined by SOAP) were to be
> widely used, we would also need schema languages to express the
> constraints defined by these profiles!
>
> Eric
> --
> Freelance consulting and training.
>                                             http://dyomedea.com/english/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
> (W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
    • From: Sam Hunting <shunting@e...>

• References:
  • Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Internal entities removed from XML?
• Next by Date: Re: Internal entities removed from XML?
• Previous by thread: Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
• Next by thread: Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread