• From: Len Bullard <len.bullard@u...>
• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:00:07 -0600

It isn't a second system except for those who start this trek with XML.
OTOH, that is what I worry about too.  Success for this suggests to me we
need a careful but quick and clear consensus on the scope.   

I like the <!NAMESPACES not because of that syntax, but because it supports
the idea that a light schema system with the right features has obvious
utility and DTDs qualify.  Pulling the DTDs out is the right thing to do on
this pass, but we need that separate specification even if DTDs aren't in
it.  Having types in the syntax is shown to be a bad idea.  Not having them
somewhere is a worse one.  We may want to ask ourselves as I am suggesting
elsewhere if 'document types' are what is needed.

Looks like entities are the sticking point.  It will determine if you
actually retired.

len


From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] 

Notorious XML radical Norm Walsh has also been contemplating XML's future:

http://norman.walsh.name/2008/02/20/xml20

Looks like some potentially helpful ground rules.

My favorite, of course, is:

"The XML 2.0 specification shall be no longer than the XML 1.0 
specification."

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.