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

Re: more grist

• From: Ben Trafford <ben@l...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:50:42 -0800

At 08:13 AM 3/1/2001 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>I wrote a piece based on the arguments of a couple of weeks ago, but it
>still seems to fit the debates as they currently rage here:
>
>"XML ain't what it used to be"
>http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/02/28/eightytwenty.html
>
>Comments welcome, public or private.

         I have to confess that I tend to agree with much of what Simon 
says in his article. Tying future XML specs to XML Schema, given the 
controversy around it in the developer community, seems like a recipe for 
disaster.

         However, tying it to something like the Infoset, and through that, 
the sort of things you might see in XML Schema, or TREX, or RELAX, might 
make sense. That way, the implementation is tied to no specific syntax, 
while maintaining the features that schemas offer.

--->Ben

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: more grist
    • From: Leigh Dodds <ldodds@i...>

• References:
  • more grist
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RELAX will continue in ISO (was Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices)
• Next by Date: RE: more grist
• Previous by thread: more grist
• Next by thread: RE: more grist
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread