[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: The subsetting has begun
Inline > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:bill@d...] > Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 12:58 PM > To: Cavnar-Johnson, John > Cc: xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: The subsetting has begun > > Cavnar-Johnson, John wrote: > > > This specification > > defines a particular application of XML and the style of document that > > that application uses. > > John, you're the third knowledgeable person I've seen claim this in > as many weeks. This is not an application of XML. I agree. As I stated previously, my initial skimming of this document was faulty. If the spec simply defined an API for handling web service invocations, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But, as several folks have pointed out, it also tries to define a non-standard approach to parsing XML documents. >Something like > MathML or RSS is an application of XML. And even if you and I > couldn't agree on what an XML application is, and we chose your > definition it still wouldn't be an application of XML. It would be > an application of an XML Infoset. XML 1.0 is just one possible > serialization of a SOAP message. I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you making a statement about this spec in particular or a larger point about SOAP? > > > > As long as it doesn't purport to define a > > generalized XML parser, why is it wrong? This application won't accept > > all well-formed XML documents, but so what? > > You might want to read the document. It talks about XML and sings > its praises, much more that it does the actual subset it defines. > > From a specification viewpoint, what is wanted is the assertion, > upfront, that this JSR uses a subset of XML, names that subset and > releases any claims to XML. That belongs in 1.2, Main Goals and > Deliverables. That way, we can evaluate the JSR on its own merits, > not XML's. Anything else is bait and switch. > > > > Must every application that > > uses XML accept any XML document? > > I think we can dismiss the argument from application. What? I don't understand your response. > > > > What's the danger here? > > Briefly it's an economic danger, not a technical one. A technical > danger one wouldn't so much - we've known since SQL was standardized > that developers love a challenge. But subsetting ups the cost of > bridging systems claiming to use XML and that does matter. After reading the spec more closely, I think the real danger is in mandating parser behavior that will guarantee incompatibility with other implementations.
|
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
|