[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)

• To: "'Seairth Jacobs'" <seairth@s...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• From: Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>
• Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:22:09 -0800

> So would the XML community be okay with defining a subset of XML?  

1.  Nobody agrees on what the subset is

Personally, I would see subsetting of the XML syntax as a better choice than
adaptation of a simplified alternative syntax, because the later will de
facto wind up as an alternative serialization of Infoset model.  A subsetted
syntax of XML proper I believe would avoid fractionating the XML world into
various Infoset serializations.  Which leads to 2:

2. Some think that XML is the best of all possible worlds

Read _Camille_ to understand the potential for humor in this perspective.

3.  Some think that there is little or no interoperability requirements
between the document and data worlds.

This crowd would push for wholly separate syntaxes with no formal junction.
Having worked on a project where the document was the data, I can say that
this argument doesn't hold water.

4. Some really want XML to be the Infoset

I don't think the Infoset is abstracted enough away from XML syntax to
adequately support alternative serializations.  Such abstractions could be
derived (by guys and gals smarter and more motivated than me), but the
result of that the XML syntax "shall dimish, and go to the West".


From now on, I'll just be thinking happy thoughts. Okay?

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
    • From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SML: Second Try
• Next by Date: RE: SML: Second Try
• Previous by thread: RE: XML Vocabulary - Environmental Sampling Data
• Next by thread: RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread