Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
John Cowan wrote: >The compatibility seems to run the other way: ConciseXML is a subset of XML 1.0. I'm disagree with that. How can "ConciseXML" be a subset of XML 1.0? If it's a subset, then any "document" written in "ConciseXML" would be XML 1.0 complaint and like Simon St.Laurent wrote: >I've always assumed that "compatible with XML" meant "would pass through an XML 1.0 parser without a fatal error". Besides, the "immprovements" of "ConciseXML" implies some structure that by definition aren't part of any well-formed XML document. Examples: 1. The abbreviation of the end tag of any element with content. 2. The possible absence of the attribute names (I wonder where that idea come from?). By the way, Mike Plush wrote: >If you ask 5 developers to create an XML 1.0 representation >for a single, well-specific object (say a Java object), then >you will likely get 5 _different_ XML 1.0 representations >for that same object. This is a HUGE problem that leads >to a lot of semantic ambiguity. ConciseXML has no such problem. How can this be? Any examples of how "ConciseXML" resolves the semantic ambiguity problem of the abstraction of any entity? Best regards, Sergio Rodríguez. CANELLA, S. A. C. A. / GT
|
