Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] (XML is SGML, part 1,002) Re: RELAX to ISO
 KenNorth wrote: > > > In other words you are not using "XML" you are using "SGML": > > Don't you think Schema and other specifications move us away from this > model? No, why? A WebSGML document doesn't need to have a DTD. There is nothing in SGML that deprecates or prevents any kind of processing: schema-processing for example. There is nothing that prevents a GROVE for an SGML document from having additional non-standard properties attached. An XML Schema is a specifation of a transformation (augmentation) of an information set and some outcome results: processing. In fact, quite the reverse. The stated aim of SGML is for rigorous description of document notations: the more rigour the better. (And ISO itself has also defined technologies "Lexical Typing" and "Architectural Forms" which provide many of the things that XML Schemas will be used for (in fact, one way to implement XML Schemas could use those facilities: I thought Extensibility used architectures in some part of their implementation, for example.) People tend to think of SGML as being what they encountered rather than what the standard is about: a technology for standard rigorous description of a comprehensive languages for generalized markup. So people who came in from FrameMaker will expect SGML to involve detailed document analysis and fixed DTDs while people who came in using OmniMark will expect their systems to allow very fast on-the-fly changes to DTDs on a completely casual basis. > > it is an industry profile which belongs to W3C not to ISO--we wanted to > give them > > the freedom to maintain it (and indeed, we cannot take it from them!) > > and develop it. > > Why is submitting a specification to ISO "taking it away" from W3C? There > nothing that takes away the W3C's mission to incubate technology or its role > in evolving new versions of XML-related specifications. ISO specs have different formats and constraints and politics to W3C. A spec can only have one controller, human nature being what it is. For example, ISO has its ISO HTML (a subset of HTML 4), but its links to W3C HTML are by initial design and the continued will of SC34 to keep compatability with W3C HTML. > Will we no longer see new ISO standards because technology incubators feel > something is taken away when they contribute to a standard? (I missed it > when IBM closed its doors after having SQL and SGML "taken away" by the ISO > ;-) Yes. We see it all the time. ISO votes are by nation; W3C votes are by member organization; why is SOAP W3C not ISO? Because the stakeholders negotiating are companies and the views of national standards bodies are irrelevant to the action. A better example is Java: not ISO standardized because ISO standardization is not rubber-stamping. Now there is a process possible at ISO to recognize standards made by other bodies: I think CCITT and IETF are included, but I forget the details. I am not sure whether these actually become ISO standards or whether they simply can be referenced by normative standards. Cheers Rick Jelliffe 
|
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
|
|||||||||
