[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: The subsetting has begun
Yep. I agree. Interestingly, some think it useful to strip the names on the way out, turn it into CSV, then restore these on the other end of the pipe. It's a closed system of course, but one where size makes a difference (RF systems). It is too minimal when it stops being XML. I've seen examples where that has to be the case so XML ubiquity isn't everything, but that is a red herring. I was noting in my reply that if we go more minimal than elements, it stops being anything an XML processor should care about. IOW, there is an absolute bottom to XML but we may say that this is not the same as the features an XML processor should support, even one based on a subset. What the subset SHOULD be is evidently disputable or application-specific. len From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean.mcgrath@p...] [Len Bullard] >What would be interesting would be a comparison of Common XML and XML-SW >to determine what features two groups considered essential and how they differ. >You say the essential subset is: > 2.2 Elements > 2.3 Attributes > 2.4 Namespaces > 2.5 Textual Content and now revise that to unbundle the namespaces >so elements, attributes, text are core. Given there are those who >say attributes are a botch, an even more conservative position is >elements, text and if we go more minimal than that, we are back to CSV. No. CSV goes too far because you loose the very essence of what gives XML its modelling power - named nodes in a directed acyclic graph.
|
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
|