[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: The subsetting has begun
It starts to be a problem when one has to move bare XML around and the framework is overzealously stuffing declarations into the syntax. Some users of XML should be SGML users instead. One case is network messaging that interfaces to RF systems where size matters a lot (RF is comparable to 9600-14.4 systems). Sometimes it is simply a matter of getting them to understand what XSLT is doing to "help" and why copy-of is a bad idea for their particular code even if it looks like tight code. Until they really understand what the infoset is for XSLT, they stumble. Otherwise, from my perspective, the XML-SW is a very sensible place to start. len From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@f...] Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > Question: how many of you participating in this > thread have read Tim Bray's XML-SW paper at > textuality.com? > > http://www.textuality.com/xml/xmlSW.html > > Perhaps we should, for a strawman's sake, put > that one proposal on the table here on XML-Dev > and debate its merits vis a vis our different > applications. We could do that. As for me, I'll stay out of the debate, since I don't think there's anything worth discussing: XML-SW is right on the mark. > My objection to it was including namespaces > in THE core. If it is not the core, nevermind; > it is a good place to start on a subset. My feeling is, as long as we're stuck with XML Namespaces to begin with, XML-SW is as good a place as any to put them.
|
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
|