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

Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....

• From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:32:02 +0800

 From: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@d...>
> Would it be XML 1.0, XML 1.0 + namespaces, XML 1.0 + namespaces
> + W3C XML Schema, ...

I think W3C XML Schemas is really XML + namespace + XPath + Datatypes +
Structures, since these are all referenced normatively.  Specs which build
on others are much bigger than they appear: having thin layers or simply
expressed layers is nice, but when the normatively referenced standards are
enormous, any even a thin layer is effectively just as enormous.

Is it "metathesis" where a part is substitution for the whole (like "sail"
being used for ship)?  It is just a normal part of English. So we cannot
expect people won't use XML for the whole thing. That confusion between
poetical use and the specific use cannot be banished.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
    • From: Steve Tinney <stinney@s...>

• References:
  • XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Non-deterministic content model
• Next by Date: RE: Verboseness - XML Syntax for XQuery 1.0 (XQueryX)
• Previous by thread: Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Next by thread: Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread