[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: The subsetting has begun
I'm an advocate of subsetting. I think Common XML got it right on features, including the restriction on Namespaces. The question becomes how does this subset relate to other XML recommendations, including future ones. I think it will be easier for parser writers to support the infoset, xml:base, etc. In fact, some specs probably ought to be based on this subset (Canonical XML comes to mind). I really don't see a big difference between Common XML, XML-SW, or the subset chosen by the SOAP folks. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...] > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:33 AM > To: 'Simon St.Laurent'; XML Dev > Subject: RE: The subsetting has begun > > Favored is a strong term, but OK. What would be > interesting would be a comparison of Common XML > and XML-SW to determine what features two groups > considered essential and how they differ. You say > the essential subset is: > > 2.2 Elements > 2.3 Attributes > 2.4 Namespaces > 2.5 Textual Content > > and now revise that to unbundle the namespaces so > > elements, attributes, text > > are core. > > Given there are those who say attributes are a botch, > an even more conservative position is > > elements, text > > and if we go more minimal than that, we are back to CSV. > I have seen message types with exactly that last set > plus the XML declaration, so it isn't unthinkable but > I'm not sure it's worth a dll. > > It would be interesting to hear from the supporters > of a subset if their applications can work with only > the features of either of those two extreme minimal > subsets, or even the documented Common XML core. Given > the extensions, Common XML is XML, yes? So what does > it achieve except to document where the reliability > begins to drop off, and that is a claim in need of > some documentation itself. No aspersions intended, > Simon, just a desire that as this thread continues, > we make sure we are debating verified results and not > our intuitions unless we denote them as such. > > <rant>Everyone claims that they are defending "interoperability" > yet I don't find a definition for that term so I > have to wonder if all are defending the same thing. > I've yet to figure out how XML succeeded because > it provides "interoperability". It provides a common > syntax for exchanging data via some transport (network, > floppy, carrier pigeon with text wrapped around the > good leg). That is where markup stops but the claims > go on.</rant> > > len > > > From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] > > Common XML [1] started with a core - one I now suspect may be too big, > largely because of namespaces - and then described layers beyond that > core. > > That might be a good operation to perform on Len's favored XML-SW early > on; I suspect doing that might well lead to the 'unbundling' of > namespaces, xml:xyz, and the infoset. > > [1] - http://simonstl.com/articles/cxmlspec.txt > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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>
|
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
|