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

Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?

• From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:36:24 -0000

Original Message From: "Simon St.Laurent"
> Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>> I don't think that subsetting only XML 1.0 (or even
>> only XML 1.0 + namespaces) would be very useful.
>
> I think it would be the right place to start, ...

The namespace problems are often mentioned.  Are there any pointers to how, 
with the benefit of hindsight / no baggage, XML 1.0 + namespaces should have 
been done?

(Certainly from a databinding point of view it would be nice if the 
worst-case number of characters you had to look-ahead to work out the 
namespace of an element (or attribute) could be predictable.)

Cheers,

Pete Cordell
Codalogic
Visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/ for XML C++ data binding

P.S. If we're looking for features, how about an xml:type attribute rather 
than having to use xsi:type?

=============================================

Original Message From: "Simon St.Laurent"
> Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>> I don't think that subsetting only XML 1.0 (or even
>> only XML 1.0 + namespaces) would be very useful.
>
> I think it would be the right place to start, however.  It's unfortunate 
> that so much effort has been put into burying the 'XML' core under 
> specifications that boggle users and implementers alike.   Lots of 
> applications and users, however, either don't bother with the crap on top, 
> or decide on their own subset in those layers, and do just fine.
>
>> That means that you should probably cleanup the most basic pieces (XML
>> 1.0 + namespaces in XML + XML Base + xml:id) and provide a kind of
>> "specifications profiles" explaining how the upper pieces can safely and
>> sanely be selected and used together.
>>
>> This also means that you'd have to debate over highly controversial
>> stuff such as namespaces and schema languages.
>
> Schema languages (except DTDs, for now) aren't actually part of XML. 
> Namespaces, though completely broken in theory, don't cause that much 
> trouble in practice, once you learn that thinking about the theory only 
> causes unnecessary pain.
>
> XML Base, XML Include, and (to a lesser degree) xml:id aren't my favorite 
> specs, but they do operate at the foundation level and at this point 
> should probably be wrapped in, yes.
>
> Making it a principle that the subset's documents have to work with 
> existing XML 1.0 processors probably leaves all of the original specs (NS, 
> XI, XB, xml:id) outside of XML 1.0 itself in a conformance gray area. 
> Over the very long term, though, wrapping them together should actually 
> make it easier to deploy them.
>
> Anyway, we'll see what happens.  The thought experiment has already 
> generated interesting conversations, so I'd call it a success so far.
>
> Thanks,
> Simon St.Laurent
> Retired XML troublemaker
> http://simonstl.com/
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>