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

Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?

• To: Christian Nentwich <christian@s...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:38:17 -0600
• Cc: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>, Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>, xml-dev@l...
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=qH2nQg/8xfuvXF00Rm6yvdheD3KoH3T7uwTUU9MnwVD0HBlJ88c+norVjUnAZ2+KjS6Et8MScHC4U8MsaIpZuDr9krwmJvkxcsGV1yvwl0DgjKYytnkTHHJqlQkdLRpMdAiw1hMw+U0kmiI4NXGNhgaaInDSFdhs6BR+X5Fox6I=
• In-reply-to: <1325652765.20050204223132@s...>
• References: <6.0.0.22.0.20050204222038.02251d70@p...> <20050204204803.GA31024@t...> <4203E349.9070803@k...> <cc159a4a0502041317af483be@m...> <4203E93A.1040302@k...> <cc159a4a05020413364d9b45c0@m...> <4203ED67.9090905@k...> <1325652765.20050204223132@s...>
• Reply-to: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 22:31:32 +0000, Christian Nentwich
<christian@s...> wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> you are right, this is not the time for diplomacy, it's the time for
> the battle axe.

Umm, that wasn't me, that was Robert... 

> I see two futures, the simplified one and the courageous one. In the
> simplified future, parameter entities are DEAD DEAD DEAD and not getting
> up again. DTDs are DEAD, general entities are defined in schemas and
> used for character codes ONLY. Somebody has a brilliant ideas about
> namespaces. Hey - it could even be compatible with a large chunk of
> the XML that is out there, certainly any I designed.

That's more or less what I'd personally want, but I'm not a Schema fan
either, I'd almost rather have DTDs in some simplified form...

> 
> In the courageous future we allow
> <bold><italic>nesting</bold></italic>, which would certainly endanger
> the DOM tree species :).
> 
> Anything less is no fun, might as well keep XML 1.0.

So far not much persuades me there's need for otherwise...

-- 
Peter Hunsberger

• References:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Christian Nentwich <christian@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? [T2005020400A5]
• Previous by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread