[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit: > Even without this, I think Blueberry documents require a Blueberry > DOM. They'll need to use a different group of legal character tables > for Blueberry and non-Blueberry documents. (though I admit one thing > that really hasn't been addressed at all yet is the changes Blueberry > will require in other specs like XPath, DOM, Schemas, etc.) I believe that no other spec is sensitive to either "What characters are allowed in names?" or "What characters are whitespace/line terminators?", the only two Blueberry questions. (If anyone knows of any, please speak up.) The changes, therefore, would be mostly a matter of reference: the specs would have to be updated to point to Blueberry instead of 1.0. IMHO there is no need to discriminate at the DOM level. A compliant DOM need not reflect whether a document is Blueberry or not; the generation of XML text from a DOM (or from XSLT, or whatever) can generate the Blueberry mark only as needed. I agree that a DOM implementation that always generates the mark is a Bad Thing, but that does not require a separate DOM. -- John Cowan cowan@c... One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter
|
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
|