[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
Title: RE: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?) -----Original Message-----
No-one has said Common XML (as a data format) is dangerous.
And thanks for the explanation of ISO 8859 Annex K -- I guess if anyone gets really serious about promoting "Common XML Core" or "MinML", it would make sense to define it in the official Annex K manner first. One issue that generated a lot of traffic on this list a year ago was whether XML needed a similar mechanism with which one could define a "profile" (as Len Bullard used the term it in http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200011/msg00176.html) that constrained the types of markup to be used in a class of XML applications (e.g., "no PIs, notations, parsed entities or CDATA sections, please" - perhaps if the format needs to be "Desperate Perl Hacker Friendly"). Isn't this more or less what Annex K allows? Would the people who so vigorously oppose defining "subsets of XML" in the name of interoperability be averse to adding a mechanism like this in a future version of XML?
|
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
|