[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML -FinalReviewDraft)
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > > At 09:32 AM 8/3/00 +0800, Rick JELLIFFE wrote: > >This agrees with XML's premise that it is a resolved document format, > >rather than a format for documents in progress. > > Is that premise formally stated anywhere? I doubt it. Probably there is some decision of the WG that comments on it, in some minutes. It is a practical necessity: SGML-on-the-Web has to be resolved SGML. It is the reason why three things were removed from XML: SDATA entities was one, IGNORE/INCLUDE marked sections in instances was another, and just I forgot the third before typing it. (That DTDs are optional also shows that strongly-typed read-write considerations did not have primacy.) XML 1.0 gives syntax not explaination: it handle almost all explaination by defering to SGML (ISO 8879). As the first paragraph of XML 1.0 says, "XML is an application profile or restricted form of SGML, the Standard Generalized Markup Language [ISO 8879]. By construction, XML documents are conforming SGML documents." So, apart from going through archives or talking to people, the premises of XML can be found by figuring out what XML substracted from SGML. I leave this as an exercise for the reader. XML substracted features needed for unresolved documents, because they were not what XML was about (at the time). (XML was initially a delivery mechanism for data kept or maintained in SGML'86 or other structured formats, in the minds of many I think. ) Since XML was attempting to shield people from the complexity/richness of SGML, there is no reason for the XML Spec to state what it lacks (or lots of other technical decisions). (I should note that there is another reason possibly constributing to getting rid of SDATA entities: some people thought that entities should/would be superceded by URIs and links. In this view, entities were an 80/20 syntax and XML would shortly have something better...so just provide enough entity capability for removing constants to headers and leave the rest till later. I am sure there are different perspectives on this. The view that XML was for web distribution was very strongly held by some: one of the arguments against the encoding header was based on consistency--that XML was a distribution format which should use MIME headers and a feature made to overcome the weaknesses of operating systems was outside-the-requirements. However, one still needs to store resolved documents, so there is no contradiction.) Rick Jelliffe
|
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
|