[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Wikipedia on XML
rjelliffe@allette.com.au schrieb am 25.08.2009 um 15:03:14 (+1000): > There is no tomorrow. XML has a version number, but it cannot be > used. Well, at least it's version 1.0, not 0.1. But I've heard that before: Why can't the version number be used? Because of the massive set of X++ technologies built on top of 1.0 by so many different parties? > XML has no effective conditional text system. Parameter entities plus INCLUDE/IGNORE? Not pretty, but effective enough to appear working.. > Namespaces have no versioning system. Schemas have no versioning > system. XSLT uses version number! If needed, a version number can always be introduced at the application level. Same namespace, new version number - and the application figures it out. > We have no system for saying "this namespace is a subset > of that namespace (therefore applications written to accept that > namespace can handle this one, with the appropriate URI change".) That seems to assume the local parts are moreless the same. Then why not use the same namespace? A simple @version or @type or @whatnot on the document element could be used to convey the information that otherwise would be in the namespace. > XML does not have the infrastructure to support the large, > evolving, mission-critical applications (including office > applications) well. This is caused by the fixation that the > mechanics of sending a file from A to B is the only issue to > consider: that behind the scenes issues are better left to > proprietary and individual efforts. It would be horrible if XML was as complicated as SOAP. Who wants something like SOAP should build and use something like SOAP. They overwhelmingly proved they can do it using XML. > So the DTD idea that real life is so chaotic you better have a > custom setting for each document, with whatever explicit > overrides, is really out of step! Do you mean the internal subset? If so, I can't see how it aligns with the other examples of XML laissez-faire, laissez-passer you gave - other than there being a vague notion of XML being liberal, even permissive. After all, nobody is forced to apply custom settings to each document. I certainly don't. But sometimes it's very useful. -- Michael Ludwig
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
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
|