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

RE: The subsetting has begun

• To: 'Gavin Thomas Nicol' <gtn@r...>, XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: The subsetting has begun
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:26:34 -0600

Sure and we did SGML before that.  I think the 
SW is well-thought through.  Bray et al stated 
a position well.  Let's give credit where credit 
is due.  I also think the Common XML is well 
stated.  Applause all round.  There isn't a 
consensus but there are serious efforts to 
figure out a different layering strategy to 
XML 1.0.

We could probably make a pretty good list of 
the logical layers at this point.  That is the 
documentation side of the job.  But a subset 
or a new definition for the core comes down 
to essentially a "next release version of 
the software" that several vendors all have 
to agree to support.  What I don't see here 
on XML-Dev are vendors clamoring to do that. 

Why not?  If a real tear in the fabric of 
interoperability of XML systems is imminent, 
shouldn't they be more concerned?  If it 
isn't, then what else but performance gains 
for particular applications is at stake?

I see via Don Box, Bosworth et al, instead, 
a proposal for a binary, which I thought to 
be an even more contentious issue.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...]

On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:38 am, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 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. 

Sure, as a platform for debate, XML-SW is a fine starting point. I think there 
are probably a few other such platforms too: CommonXML being one, and XML-SW 
minus all the bits I discussed could be another. FWIW. Both you and I 
participated in the early XML efforts, as did a fairly significant set of 
other people. That alone doesn't buy credibility.

> 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.

Yes. We've already seen that it's somewhat contentious as it stands. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Cavnar-Johnson, John" <JCavnar-Johnson@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Sorting out what we agree and disagree on (was Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????)
• Next by Date: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Previous by thread: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Next by thread: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread