• From: John Snelson <john.snelson@o...>
• To: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@c...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:17:56 +0000

Pete Cordell wrote:
> ----- Original Message From: "Eric van der Vlist"
> 
>> When people say "XML is hard", they usually do not mean "XML 1.0 is
>> hard" but "XML 1.0 + namespaces in XML + XPath + DOM + XSLT + W3C XML
>> Schema + XML Base + xml:id + XInclude + XPointer + ... is hard" and the
>> proportion of criticism that goes to XML 1.0 itself is usually pretty
>> low. In other words, I don't think that subsetting only XML 1.0 (or even
>> only XML 1.0 + namespaces) would be very useful.
> 
> So I'm wondering, what do others think of as XML when Simon says 
> "...creating a subset of XML..."?

Interesting question - I think it depends what suits me ;-).

When Simon says JSON is good enough most of the time I think how 
unlikely I would be to give up XPath, XQuery and XSLT.

When Simon talks about subsetting XML I think about ditching DTDs and 
bringing some sanity to namespaces.

A lot of the other technologies don't cause me pain because I don't use 
them and I rarely have to support customers who use them.

John

-- 
John Snelson, Oracle Corporation            http://snelson.org.uk/john
Berkeley DB XML:        http://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/xml
XQilla:                                  http://xqilla.sourceforge.net

• References:
  • ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>