Re: The subsetting has begun
Mike Champion wrote: > In other words, it's not going to happen, so what's the point of wishing > it would? Arguably it's expensive to stack up XML systems without a clean seperation between syntax and content models. And people do get confused between with two - just this sort of mixup help mess up RDF adoption for years (and even today, people don't or won't acknowldege the difference between an RDF graph and RDF/XML). > I wish people would just acknowledge that the XML syntax and > Infoset(s) were joined at birth (every well-formed XML document can be > parsed into a tree). And not all well formed XML document have an XML Infoset. > Then maybe we could do what has to be done to make > the actual Infoset spec more useful (e.g., by making the language less > awkward, such as "element" rather than "element information item" > [gag]), and making it as formally rigorous as the syntax spec (somebody > said that this could be done with ASN.1, but I don't know that). My > wish sounds about as futile as Bill's wish for pristine waters, I fear. Pristine waters I can live without, but poor engineering is a different matter :) A realpolitik approach to XML technology is fine, then it's down to cost/benefit. I do think you can build an abstract content model for XML and get it to interop (layering on SAX might be a quick win). the XML Infoset would need to be revised to include non-namespaced XML as 'meaningful' (for starters). One technology where people don't seem to get confused between models and syntax is UML (a few tools vendors and software archietcts excepted); maybe that's becuase it's pictorial. Bill de hÓra
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