[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Towards XML 2.0

  • From: "David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com>
  • To: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>, <xml-dev@l...>
  • Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:26:03 -0500

RE:  Towards XML 2.0

Scratch that, I guess I wasn’t reading well enough :

 

Element Information Items

[namespace name], [local name], [prefix], [children], [attributes], [namespace attributes], [in-scope namespaces], [base URI], [parent]

 

 

I guess for my tastes the Minimum is way too advanced.

I'd like to see profiles where Namespace interpretation is not required and possibly not even attributes.

 

 

----------------------------------------

David A. Lee

dlee@calldei.com

http://www.xmlsh.org

 

From: David Lee [mailto:dlee@calldei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:21 AM
To: 'vojtech.toman@e...'; 'xml-dev@l...'
Subject: RE: Towards XML 2.0

 

Most Excellent ! I was only aware of the XProc Profile spec.

 

Question:  I cant tell by reading this isf the Minimum  profile actually requires parsing of namespaces.

It must be "namespace wellformed' which just limits the number ":" in attributes but does it have to be a 'namespace aware' processor ?

 

 

 

----------------------------------------

David A. Lee

dlee@calldei.com

http://www.xmlsh.org

 

From: vojtech.toman@e... [mailto:vojtech.toman@e...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 7:55 AM
To: xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE: Towards XML 2.0

 

Just to make sure, you are all aware of the XML Processor Profiles draft, right?

 

http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-proc-profiles/

 

Incidentally, it is in last call now, so if you want to comment, you should let us know now. :)

 

Regards,

Vojtech

 

 

--
Vojtech Toman
Consultant Software Engineer
EMC | Information Intelligence Group
http://developer.emc.com/xmltech

 

From: David Lee [mailto:dlee@calldei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 1:44 PM
To: 'Cecil New'; stephengreenubl@g...
Cc: Toman, Vojtech; xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE: Towards XML 2.0

 

+10 !!! for conformance classes.

This is what I meant when suggesting "Processor Profiles".

A set of well-defined subsets of XML for particular purposes.   It would all still be "XML" but just limit the use to particular features,

and enable processers to be written optimized for that class/profile.

By defining these publicly it gives a 'nod' to the users to 'feel OK' about what they are doing, and a justification to other engineers/mgt etc.

It also gives a common set of specs for all parts of the content pipe.   This would be a great boon for the Mobile space, IMHO,

as we might actually get a decent mobile XML parser (possibly in JS) conforming to a 'standard' profile … instead of giving up because

doing 100% was just too big.

 

"Were using Min Profile 3.2 - No Namespaces, No Mixed Content …"



[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!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.