[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: The subsetting has begun
Mike Champion wrote: > In other words, it's not going to happen, so what's the point of wishing > it would? Arguably it's expensive to stack up XML systems without a clean seperation between syntax and content models. And people do get confused between with two - just this sort of mixup help mess up RDF adoption for years (and even today, people don't or won't acknowldege the difference between an RDF graph and RDF/XML). > I wish people would just acknowledge that the XML syntax and > Infoset(s) were joined at birth (every well-formed XML document can be > parsed into a tree). And not all well formed XML document have an XML Infoset. > Then maybe we could do what has to be done to make > the actual Infoset spec more useful (e.g., by making the language less > awkward, such as "element" rather than "element information item" > [gag]), and making it as formally rigorous as the syntax spec (somebody > said that this could be done with ASN.1, but I don't know that). My > wish sounds about as futile as Bill's wish for pristine waters, I fear. Pristine waters I can live without, but poor engineering is a different matter :) A realpolitik approach to XML technology is fine, then it's down to cost/benefit. I do think you can build an abstract content model for XML and get it to interop (layering on SAX might be a quick win). the XML Infoset would need to be revised to include non-namespaced XML as 'meaningful' (for starters). One technology where people don't seem to get confused between models and syntax is UML (a few tools vendors and software archietcts excepted); maybe that's becuase it's pictorial. Bill de hÓra
|
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
|