RE: The subsetting has begun
I agree that less needs to be in the subset and it really needs to be a subset, not a wholesale restart on the core, but it represents a point of view and from people who took on the task before. It is worth looking at because it mirrors positions about what a core should be that will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Better sooner and better in public than in the W3C committees. I am reacting to the vociferous calls for a sanctioned subset that seem to promote fear of forking but that offer no clear alternative except a consistent dislike for DTDs, entities, and PIs. On another side, some dislike the xml: reserved names, namespaces, and the infoset. So what would a consensus look like? The first consensus needs to be that action is required at all because there is a third position that says, when in strong doubt, do nothing (the General Allenby approach). len From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...] On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:05 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > >I disagree. As I said at the start of the thread, XML-SW bundles > > namespaces, xml:space, xml:lang, xml:base and infoset, which I think is a > > mistake. > > Fair enough. I said it is a place to start. If all of the subset > supporters and detractors are arguing about the same document, then that is > a satisfactory way to begin. If they can't do that, there is little use in > beginning. I understand your desire, but I think it's best to start minimal and build up.
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