Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] FW: Partyin' like it's 1999
 Forwarded from Rick Jeliffe... -----Original Message----- From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...] > For documentation, Derek cites (in his order significant or not): > > 1. Allowed characters Hi! I don't think Derek's stated comments on allowed characters are correct. He says that XML only allows letters and digits in names, which is not so. He says that there have been lots of Asian characters missed out, which is not so. And he says that XML required checking for correct surrogate pairs, which is not so. At least, all those were incorrect for XML 1.0 when it was introduced. There were no surrogates in Unicode at that time. Subsequently Unicode has added characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane, including some obscure and regional Asian characters, and XML 1.1 has grown to keep up with them. XML 1.1 also allows transmission of control characters (except NULL) and has simpler tables for checking names. So the complaints about The only things complaints I have heard about XML names (especially in IDs) is that they don't allow starting digits or arbitrary strings. On the other hand, that makes them easier to use as tokens in languages (JavaScript for example). But there is XML Schemas at the high end and Schematron at the low end which are perfectly capable of validating arbitrary keys and references. At ISO DSDL, we have been sitting around waiting for someone to make up a small key/reference/integrity schema language that would allow validation and graph-building without requiring full XML Schemas validation. The absense of such a thing (e.g. something that could be used to create an ID list next to a DOM as a SAX insert) suggest either that it is not a pressing need, or that people are feckless and lazy, or that XML Schemas and Schematron are adequate, or that IDs are enough, or that the people that need extended references are using DBMS which already provide integrity checks and this is a requirement coming from people who want to ramp up "native" XML DBMS. Of course, people don't like XML 1.1 because it is supposedly syntactically incompatible with XML 1.0 (for control characters which some major processors in some major Western encodings would fail on anyway, and so were not reliably interoperable) though infoset compatible. Is it consistent to say "Lets adopt a completely different syntax!" at the same time as saying "We will not use XML 1.1 because it has a restricted syntax for C1 controls and that is UNTHINKABLY INCOMPATIBLE"? As another matter, Derek mentions spurious whitespace nodes. But if using a DTD (and validating parser) these nodes will not be generated. So it is not a problem with XML, but a trade-off you get with using simple XML. Indeed, even with no-DTD XML, people can avoid spurious whitespace nodes simply by not autoindenting their generated XML. XML Schemas and RELAX NG also provide enough information that a vendor could use to configure their XML processors to strip out insignificant whitespace. As far as what are XML's top five problems, here's my list: 1) Needs adjusted conformance levels: no-DTD, or DTD+validating. Current validating/non-validing/standalone levels are confusing and don't promote guaranteed transmission of information. 2) Needs to reserve ISO standard entity names with ISO meanings, so that no-DTD processors can be used in the publishing industry. Without this, people still need DTDs, and so there is not enough marginal utility in adopting other grammar-based schemas such as RELAX NG or XML Schemas. 3) Need to have namespace-aware DTDs. Even just to allow that @xmlns and @xmlns:* do not need to be declared in the DTD would be a giant step forward. There is no problem from the ISO side for doing a change like this for DTDs (there is even a work item for this in ISO DSDL), it just requires some action from the W3C. (It would be useful for schema adoption, too, because it would provide an better on-ramp for people to transition to namespaces, and also could provide a terser delivery mechanism for validation/ID=IDREF annotation by converting from schema to DTD) 4) Needs xml:space="strip" for use with no DTD. 5) W3C needs to endorse ISO Schematron. (The final ISO draft will be available this week, by the way: I will announce a link hosted at schematron.com, which is a site I am currently preparing for ISO Schematron implementation news) 6) Whingers who dissipate real opportunities for change. You know what that old post of mine on "XML 2.0 alpha" was about? That people were disccussing whether we needed comments when XML Schemas was in the offing. Like that movie CON-AIR where the little girl is playing innocently as the child molester approaches. I certainly think it is time for XML 2.0, but to remove specific problems with the existing syntax, not to reduce the infoset or adopt some different syntax or disenfranchise publishing people further. Cheers Rick Jelliffe 
|
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
|
|||||||||
