[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: 'Sean McGrath' <sean.mcgrath@p...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:25:03 -0600

State the problem well.  Before the work, let's 
see the requirement.   So far what I get from 
Mike Champion et al is a general fear of the 
flowers growing in the wild, not a valid requirement 
or one which first answers the question of whether 
or not a single subset can be of enough benefit to 
enough constituents to be worth the work or the 
risks.  If multiple subsets are growing and if 
they are as in the binaries, adapted to the needs 
of particular applications, then the idea Henry 
Thompson proposed of using conformance levels 
will be the better course.

I've seen the statement for why SOAP restricted 
the application.  That's fine.  I've seen no 
evidence that it should be a normative subset.

len


From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean.mcgrath@p...]

[Wayne Steele]

 >Let a thousand subsets bloom!

They already have, but we don't like to talk about that on xml-dev:-).

*They* are watching us you know.

Best that we just pretent the problem isn't there. Keep it too ourselves. 
Dirty linen best
not washed in public.

Plug'n'play XML interop? Perish the thought! Where is the money in that?

• Prev by Date: RE: GML->SGML->XML->?->?->?->?->?->?->...
• Next by Date: Re: KAVI
• Previous by thread: Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Next by thread: Problem with Inserted space and Character on Solaris
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread