Re: The waterfall model lives? (was Re: Thesubsettin
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:41:16 +0000, B2ll de hÓra <bill@d...> wrote: > Well maybe, but the very first thing to do there is determine a way to > negotiate features between processors. Yup. I think Sean McGrath suggested something like this years ago, and nobody seems to have picked up on the idea. I don' remember Sean's syntax, but it could be something like: <?xml version="2.0" encoding="UTF-8" features="this that something" ?> The features and strings might be defined in some future XML spec, e.g. EE="expand external entities" DA = "default attribute values", etc. I'm probably horribly naive to think that the enumeration of features would relatively easy to get agreement on :-) So, a parser would "advertise" the list of features it supports its documentation and maybe via some standardized API call, and instances would declare which features it requires; mismatches could be detected immediately, or apps could call whichever parser is optimal for the requested features, or whatever. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the features in XML 1.0 are so minimal that they should all be one "feature," but this kind of thing would make a real difference when considering the implications of all the other stuff that might be rolled into or out of XML n+1, such as DTDs, namespaces, xml:base, xml:id, not to mention XSDL, XPointer, etc. etc. etc.
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