[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedsp
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > At 08:14 PM 9/23/2001 -0400, Champion, Mike wrote: > >>I think there's an issue here that goes way beyond ElectricXML and >>namespaces: Are acts of "civil disobedience" against "needlessly complicated >>and confusing" specs a Good Thing because they point us in the right >>direction or a Bad Thing because they cause chaos? >> > > You can say similar things about SOAP, as it forbids DOCTYPE > declarations. Wait a second, some people already _are_ asking that: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0203.html > (and Mike's answered as well.) Noah Mendelsohn made a good point [1] noting that any application of XML is defining a subset of XML. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0206.html When you think about it, specifying a schema (with a DTD, a W3C XML Schema or any other language) is defining the subset that your application will allow within all the possible XML documents. This subset can usually not be completely by a schema since most of the schema languages are very weak in describing business rules and the XML applications usually also include a textual specification of extra rules that need to be checked. On the other hand, does that mean that any restriction can be specified without loosing the right to be called XML? I can for sure specify that attributes are not allowed (all I have to do is to declare no attributes in my schema), but can I specify, for instance that all my attributes must be single quoted? There is a border line somewhere and this border line should probably be better defined. My perception is that it should be allowed to define restrictions on the content of a document, not on the syntax of its markup. Even this definition is blur and cannot fully answer the question asked by SOAP: is the doctype markup syntax or document content? I would say it is markup syntax, but this perception light be application dependant... The case of the doctype is also complicated by the fact that the doctype doesn't find it's way into the XPath data model and that all the XPath based tools have no way to test the presence of a doctype and by the architectural issues it can bring for XML messages (what if a reference to a relative URI is made, what if the content of an external entity changes over time, ...?). > Could be some interesting if chaotic times ahead. Sure! I do find it interesting: could SOAP be an unexpected offspring of SML growing within the entrails of the W3C? Eric > > Simon St.Laurent > Associate Editor > O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. > -- See you in Scottsdale, Arizona. http://xmlconnections.com/xml/xmlfall2001/speakers.asp#evandervlist ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
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
|