Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Rick Jelliffe" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "XML-Dev Mailing list" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 17:13:55 +1000
From: Simon St.Laurent <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>I'm hardly new to XML; it's just taken me about two years to come to
>conclusion that some things are irreparably broken.
Rubbish. You have been saying this on and off for the entire time you
been on XML-DEV Simon :-) And every time you do, everyone replies with
variants of "X was really helpful" or "I found X quite useful" or "I
didnt find X
particularly useful" or even "X didn't help me" and everyone agrees "it
be nice to have more". It is becoming a ritual.
The problems you mention come down to the same two, unless I am missing
* There is currently no convention to name the effective document type
and prevent extensibility using the internal subset.
* XML has no data-typing (esp. on attributes and data content).
The first is hardly surprising: it allows extensibility with strong
typing (but its
managebility is weak). Solutions (e.g. from HyTime) to this have been
at intervals, but to no avail.
The second is the oldest complaint in the book; and the oldest answer in
is "that is the trouble with layered, distributed development:
sometimes layers lag
or cannot be agreed on" (actually, all the consortia who are
making families of DTDs in their particular domains are defining data
types that they consider appropriate). The W3C Schema WG, of course,
works in this area.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)