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

Re: Failed XML standards

• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@ibiblio.org>
• To: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@gmail.com>
• Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:17:50 -0500

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Peter Hunsberger
<peter.hunsberger@gmail.com> wrote:

> So what's the alternative?  There are lots of things that people
> sometimes want to do, but not always.  Having optional standards that
> cover these areas is probably a good thing;

No, the alternative is to build them into the specs and require
parsers to support them, but not require documents to use them. For
example, consider attributes. You don't have to use them in XML, but
if you do use them you know they're supported. xml:id, xml:base, and a
few other things (though probably not XInclude) should be baked in,
not bolted on. Watch this space. :-)

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@ibiblio.org

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@gmail.com>
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>

• References:
  • Failed XML standards
    • From: Jesper Tverskov <jesper.tverskov@gmail.com>
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@ibiblio.org>
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@gmail.com>