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

Re: XML API specification

• From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>
• To: Peter Murray-Rust <Peter@u...>
• Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:21:10 -0600

Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> 
> My gut feeling is that a PhaseI API can be extended to a PhaseII API
> without breaking it seriously.  (We shall doubtless define things like
> Link, MultiLink extends Link, etc.)  It seems (again from my position of
> ignorance) that your concern is 'if we create an API for PhaseI and don't
> think about the effect on PhaseIII, we could find ourselves in serious
> trouble'.  I can't help there.  However if we _can't_ easily extend
> NXP, Lark, etc then we are going to have a fairly hairy system to work
> with.

It appears that an IDL-specified API that expresses the SGML property 
set used in the XML application profile is the most flexible proposal.
A Java-implementation from that would be the most flexible product.

The XML Link specification is not, (I believe) an SGML property 
set issue since these are application semantics.  It is important 
to express these in the IDL.

len bullard
lockheed martin

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • Re: XML API specification
    • From: Peter@u... (Peter Murray-Rust)

• Prev by Date: Re: XML API specification
• Next by Date: Re: XML API specification
• Previous by thread: Re: XML API specification
• Next by thread: Re: XML API specification
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread