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

Re: Generic XML Tag Closer </> (GXTC)

• From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: xml-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:41:13 +1000

juanrgonzaleza@c... wrote:
> Rick Jelliffe said:
>   
>> and also the goal that there should be as few optional features as
>> possible.
>>     
>
> Well, i think that XML is very contrary to that goal.
>
> - elements vs attributes
>   
Elements and attributes are not optional in XML 1.0.  You are confusing 
optionality with
syntactic sugar.
> - DTD vs Schema vs other
>   
Schemas are not part of XML 1.0
> - <tag></tag> vs. </tag>
>   
Support for these is not optional in XML 1.0
> - Multiple sintaxes for authoring
>   
What does that mean?
> - DTD entities vs, PI entities, vs. Schema entities vs...
>   
Support for parameter entities is optional, in the sense that a 
non-validating parser that finds a
document with standalone="yes" does not need to process the external 
subset of the prolog.

There is no such thing as a PI entity (even in SGML). There is no such 
thing as a Schema entity.
> - XSL-FO vs CSS.
>   
These are not part of XML 1.0
> - HTML link vs. Xlinx vs. Hlink
>   
These are not part of XML 1.0
>> XML was not created to be a perfect language
>>  that would suit everyone.  It was designed to be SGML deliverable over
>> the web. Of course if you have different goals you will generate a
>> different language.
>>     
>
> Therefore the X of XML does not mean eXtensible to suit user needs. When
> XML was designed first time, people decided what would be in and what
> would be out. I see no problem with review this again with an eye in
> future XML.
>   
If you go to Wimbledon, it is useless to sit at a court where the match 
has finished and
demand a rematch to the empty stadium. You have to go to the court where 
a game is
still being played. In XML's case, the games being played at the moment 
are the fast
infoset and the XML pipelining work.
> Sure! but one can extend that argument and the fact that XML 1 does not
> support something says exactly nothing about what a XML 2 should support.
>
>   
How ridiculous.

If there is an XML 2, it will be a consolidation of the existing pending 
fiddles that are
floating so fecklessly about at W3C, in the light of a stronger 
processing model that
gives some meaning to them: XML 1.1 - DTD + namespaces + xml:base + 
xml:include
+ xml:whatever + processing model.

There will be that XML 1.0, XML 2.0 as above, plus a binary version, 
plus JSON, as the dominant players, AFAIKS.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Generic XML Tag Closer </> (GXTC)
    • From: juanrgonzaleza