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

Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?

• To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>,"Mike Champion" <mc@x...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:38:22 -0800
• References: <XVYSJH4WYTD9542WJH1LI97UJHZT75.3c48ab86@MChamp> <02a801c1a075$f1ad5190$0a2e249b@n...> <02b201c1a077$61f800c0$0a2e249b@n...>

I think "disaster" is a rather strong word. XHTML 1.1 is not even a year old
yet. I'd give it a few more months before complaining. No schema validator
handles all of W3C XML schema yet (those that claim to are buggy as hell or
support a subset).

At least it isn't as bad as programming language implementations, no one has
yet fully implemented a standards compliant C++ compiler (4 year old spec) or
C99 compiler (2 year old spec) yet.

--
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #49
If I learn the whereabouts of the one artifact which can destroy me, I
will not send all my troops out to seize it. Instead I will send them
out to seize something else and quietly put a Want-Ad in the local paper.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
To: "Mike Champion" <mc@x...>; <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 3:25 PM
Subject: Re:  XML is easy, was: Re: SV:  XML=WAP? And DOA?


> > Mike Champion wrote:
> > >
> > > The issues here aren't with XML 1.0 so much as with DOM, XSLT, SVG,
> > > CSS, etc. I'm saying "just make SURE that the complex stuff those
> > > wizards and GUIs generate truly interoperate," don't take the
> > > vendor's word for it. "We make it easy" is the first step down the
> > > road to interoperability Hell. Is that really so unfair, to MS or
> > > anyone else?
> > >
> > Amen Mike, I mean if you guys can't commit to a conformant implementation,
> > don't let the REC out the door.
> >
>
> One more thought:
>
> How many validators can validate XHTML 1.1?
>
> MSXML bags it because it doesn't accept defaulted xmlns attributes -- and
> since validation is all XML 1.0, I can't see why that should have bearing on
> validation.
>
> How many DTD/schema editors can edit the XHTML 1.1 (e.g. Modularization)
> DTD? None I've found.
>
> This is a disaster. You have a full W3C recommendation for the latest
> _XHTML_ of all things -- not like its intended to be some fringe
> specification, and nothing seems capable of dealing with it properly. Who is
> at fault here?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• References:
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Namespaces. Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out TheNoise)
• Next by Date: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Previous by thread: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Next by thread: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread