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

RE: The subsetting has begun

• To: 'XML Dev' <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: The subsetting has begun
• From: "Cavnar-Johnson, John" <JCavnar-Johnson@s...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:11:03 -0600
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACFE8@h...>

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 10:44 AM
> To: Cavnar-Johnson, John; 'XML Dev'
> Subject: RE:  The subsetting has begun
> 
> Thanks for that summary.  I noted also from the TAG
> list the action for Liam to begin to look at the
> issue.  What I haven't seen is a decision to
> create a new class of parser and much of the
> subset discussions come down to that when
> the costs are assessed, and it will ripple
> into every area of XML application or support.

True, I'm just suggesting there should be such a decision. I look at the
potential value and cost and think that it is worth doing.

> 
> At least this is one that can be done at
> leisure and not in haste as XML itself was
> done.  That is why a review of XML-SW, Common
> XML, the SOAP requirements and so forth are a
> good exercise.

I strongly agree.  I haven't seen much discussion of those things on
this list, unfortunately.  Folks seem more inclined to rehash old
battles, wander off into esoteric debates, and excoriate the convenient
villains.

> 
> It will raise hell in the documentation world
> where DTDs and entities remain an article of much effort
> and considerable benefit.  Again and as loudly
> as I can say it, a fracture between the documentation
> and message worlds of XML will have serious
> consequences for XML.  Caveat vendor.

I disagree here.  I don't see a fracture between users of validating
parsers and non-validating parsers today.  What's the basis for your
assertion that this will have serious consequences?  Nobody's saying
that the documentation world can't keep there current tools and
methodologies.  I think the theoretical users of the new parsers have
little or no interaction with that world anyway. I hate to see this
false dichotomy between doc heads and data heads perpetuated. I'm
interested in systems that integrate business documents (purchase
orders, contracts, etc.) with relational systems.  I consider myself
very "document-oriented", but DTDs, entities and such don't buy me much
of anything and the non-optional nature of the internal subset is
extremely frustrating.

> 
> Yes, the consensus among those
> who desire a subset is to take out DTDs, DOCTYPEs,
> and entities.  What cannot be decided at this
> time is not simply which specifications cannot
> be supported by an implementation that relies on
> these features, but how to proceed in the case
> that an implementation that requires the features
> being removed would proceed given a new implementation
> or specification built over the subset.  Duplication
> leads to more revisions in the code base.  That
> has costs.

How is this different from the current division between validating and
non-validating parsers?

> 
> len
> 
> From: Cavnar-Johnson, John [mailto:JCavnar-Johnson@s...]
> 
> I think there is a great deal more consensus than the discussion on
this
> list would lead you to believe.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• References:
  • RE: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by Date: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Previous by thread: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Next by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread