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

RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)

• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:12:03 -0500
• In-reply-to: <p04330102ba687cb0e4f1@[192.168.254.4]>

elharo@m... (Elliotte Rusty Harold) writes:
>At 8:43 PM +0000 2/6/03, Dave Pawson wrote:
>>The design goals for XML are
>>    * XML shall be straightforwardly usable over the Internet.
>>    * XML shall support a wide variety of applications.
>>    * XML shall be compatible with SGML.
>>    * It shall be easy to write programs which process XML documents.
>>    * The number of optional features in XML is to be kept to the 
>>absolute minimum, ideally zero.
>>    * XML documents should be human-legible and reasonably clear.
>>    * The XML design should be prepared quickly.
>>    * The design of XML shall be formal and concise.
>>    * XML documents shall be easy to create.
>>    * Terseness in XML markup is of minimal importance.
>>
>>Which ones are wrong today?
>
>I don't think any of them are wrong today, but 4 and 5 were not fully 
>satisfied by the spec that was produced.

4 largely depends on your definition of "easy".  5 is where things
rapidly get aggravating.  A lot of the chaos on point five crept in late
in the process, with standalone and the non-validating parsers can
ignore external subset business.  

>>What's missing?
>
>A clear description of the information from the document that a 
>processor must pass to the client application. Processor behavior was 
>severely underspecified in XML 1.0. What was specified was almost by 
>accident.

It certainly would have been nice to have that listed coherently in one
place, yes.

I have to admit that XML 1.0, flaws and all, makes me feel all warm and
fuzzy compared to the specifications that have followed.  It wasn't
perfect, but I suspect it's by far the least dysfunctional of the XML
family of specs.


-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

• References:
  • RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Next by Date: Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Previous by thread: RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Next by thread: Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread