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

Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)

• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 17:44:26 -0500
• In-reply-to: <p04330102ba687cb0e4f1@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030206203831.00af6660@p...><p04330102ba687cb0e4f1@[192.168.254.4]>
• User-agent: Opera7.0/Win32 M2 build 2637

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:59:33 -0500, Elliotte Rusty Harold 
<elharo@m...> wrote:


>> Which ones are wrong today?
>
> I don't think any of them are wrong today, but 4 and 5 were not fully 
> satisfied by the spec that was produced.
>
>> What's missing?
>
> A clear description of the information from the document that a processor 
> must pass to the client application.

I completely agree!  And amidst these points is where the permathreads are 
born:

>> * It shall be easy to write programs which process XML documents.

This runs into the numerous strongly held but incompatible conceptions of 
how one writes programs, e.g. static typed vs dynamic typed, event-driven 
or datastructure-centric, big-design-up-front vs extreme programming, hand- 
coded vs wizard-generated, and so on.

>> * The number of optional features in XML is to be kept to the absolute 
>> minimum, ideally zero.

This runs into the fact that what is essential to one community (e.g. 
docheads) is optional to another (e.g. dataheads) and vice versa.

The "clear description of the information from the document" is the InfoSet 
permathread.

Since the namespaces cluster-^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H permathread wasn't addressed 
in XML 1.0, we can't blame that one on the original requirements.

• References:
  • RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
    • From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>
  • RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Next by Date: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Previous by thread: RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Next by thread: Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread