Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>
- To: "xml-dev" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:57:24 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Leigh Dodds <email@example.com>
To: xml-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 9:19 AM
Subject: RE: Feeler for SML (Simple Markup Language)
> What would we gain from SML that we couldn't gain from only
> producing (and therefore processing) XML documents but
> without any of the 'additional' features?
A "standard", or really a sortof an informal contract, saying I won't send
you messages or documents with any attributes, PIs, entities, etc.
This lets you optimize your code to be blissfully ignorant of them. But
a "contract" saying what we won't send each other, there are many potentials
for interoperability failures. I might send Don a document with attributes
I happen to like) but his processor chokes on. It would be better to form
a wide consensus on EXACTLY what subset of XML the "SML community" would
> If I don't want to have attributes, or PIs, or use entities,
> etc. then I don't *have* to. Granted the SAX/DOM APIs
> still provide support for these constructs, but
> I can still ignore them surely? (and I still retain
> the option to use them at a later date).
Right. But your true-XML parser, DOM/SAX APIs, transformation
engines, etc. will be bloated with all sorts of code that will never be
executed. If I'm writing applications for cellphones, that matters!
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 unsubscribe, 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)