[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: The waterfall model lives?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 / Mike Champion <mc@x...> was heard to say: [...] | So what if XML were "refactored" so that the bare-bones well-formed | syntax (and/or data model, that's another issue!) were the common | core, and DTD processing were at the next layer up? That would solve | the J2ME issue, address the high-speed SOAP processing issue, | standardize the "Common XML Core" that is the rock-solid basis of de | facto interoperability, and so on. Yes, I think if the decision is reached that a subset ("kernel" I called it, stealing the word from Stuart who actually thought of it) is the right answer, I think it would make editorial sense to refactor the specs so that they layered as you propose. But I wonder how rock-solid the basis actually is. That's the part that bothers me. If you said "XML Kernel" is XML 1.1 w/o DTDs would someone come along a week later and say they must have a subset that doesn't have PIs in it? Or comments? Or attributes? Or #PCDATA? I dunno. It seems unlikely, it seems like the task of parsing those things isn't very onerous. But we said that about 1.0 with DTDs, didn't we? Be seeing you, norm - -- Norman.Walsh@S... | Reason's last step is the recognition that XML Standards Architect | there are an infinite number of things which Web Tech. and Standards | are beyond it.--Pascal Sun Microsystems, Inc. | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQE+X9NdOyltUcwYWjsRAgKjAJ9BIMfr4Dmy8lZChK4UPrQIOHGnUQCgoiWF LX0ScDelrnCRY395gw2EgsM= =lwxs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
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
|