Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: SML: Second Try
 One might respect it without having to marry it. Most of what we are saying is Spy Vs Spy: does the core mean the functions all systems use (so we are down to elements) or the basic set of services most people use most of the time? Otherwise, we are just using our positions to marginalize groups of users. The question of importance is, what is an XML processor normatively guaranteed to deliver as a service to a calling application? Rick Jeliffe made some very good points in this regard, specifically, that we may need to reclassify processors and document types (not DTDs, the headless types). Still, at the bottom of it all is as I said way back when in another thread: the real issue here is what is an XML processor? Is there one or many? Does the spec have to spec only one or many because that is how profiles will be instantiated? Should services be declared as profiles and each gets it's own conforming processor, or should we have one processor which can be configured for the services, or both? Is it syntax based or infoset based? Never trust a sound engineer who tells you he can fix it in the mix until he shows you he can. len From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...] On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:50:19 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@i...> wrote: > The rest of what you are saying is more of the same: fear of the wild. > That is, if we don't make an official subset, subsets will grow willy- > nilly. Well, yeah. More or less. See below. > > So? Are we here to protect a "brand name" or to ensure that XML 1.0, > 1.1, are inclusive? I guess I'm suggesting that XML not go the way of SQL, which (AFAIK from the very interesting XML databases town hall at XML 2002) seemed to value inclusiveness at the expense of coherence and interoperability. It's much easier to add features to a "standard" knowing that they won't be universally implemented than to refactor out the core stuff that really is universal from the peripheral stuff that is quasi-proprietary (in the case of SQL) or useful only to specific subgroups (e.g. notations, parameter entities) or just very problematic in practice (default attribute values come to mind). Inclusiveness is politically easy, but saps the real value of standardization. I want the core stndard to be the intersection of things that are actually supported and actually work, not the union of all the things that different people want to use. The intersection of "SOAP practice" and "Docbook practice" is a subset of "XML 1.x" and I think it deserves a recognized identity, and some respect :-) 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
|
|||||||||
