Re: Failed XML standards
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Peter Hunsberger > <email@example.com> wrote: > >> So what's the alternative? There are lots of things that people >> sometimes want to do, but not always. Having optional standards that >> cover these areas is probably a good thing; > > No, the alternative is to build them into the specs and require > parsers to support them, but not require documents to use them. For > example, consider attributes. You don't have to use them in XML, but > if you do use them you know they're supported. xml:id, xml:base, and a > few other things (though probably not XInclude) should be baked in, > not bolted on. Watch this space. :-) > Well that sure doesn't jive with your original starting position: > Let me put it like this: one of the original goals of XML was "The number of > optional features in XML is to be kept to the absolute minimum, ideally > zero." However, optional but part of the base spec, vs. optional and part of a different spec really makes no difference as far as I can tell, other than to make the base spec larger and harder to get agreement on? -- Peter Hunsberger
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
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