[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: more grist
At 01:26 PM 3/1/2001 -0500, John Cowan wrote: >You might as well complain that your desk dictionary has no standardized >extension mechanism. Get a bigger dictionary, that's all. I don't believe the analogy applies. In the case of InfoSet, or any other standard, to just "extend my dictionary," I'd need to: 1) Get the Working Group to agree on it. 2) Write up a spec defining the new features, and pass that through the Working Group. 3) Get all the InfoSet-compliant parsers updated. On the other hand, if I had a standard extension method, anybody could add to the dictionary in a standards-compliant, interoperable fashion. Thus, James Clark could write an extension specific to TREX, and then a standard extension to InfoSet-friendly tools, using an API. Half the problem with InfoSet is that it doesn't talk directly to a standard API, like DOM. See what I mean? XML's extensibility doesn't extend to the processing side of things, at this point. Anybody who wants to add anything doesn't have any kind of standard extension method to do it. And with xsl-script and other such silliness, the W3C is stripping the extensibility that does exist. >> 2) InfoSet has no conception of scaled conformance. > >Not for lack of trying. But the Core WG concluded that there was no >base level of conformance that was nonarbitrary and would suit everyone, >so we explicitly stopped trying. Another example of why W3C is becoming less and less relevant. W3C Schema is another perfect example of how politics messed up a relatively good idea. --->Ben
|
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
|