Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <email@example.com>
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:55:42 -0500
> 1) Tie down what the bifurcation areas that cause XML
> interoperability problems and allow people to throw
> the phrase "XML parser" around with wild abandon.
> e.g. external subset processing, external entity references,
> Unicode encoding(s) supported, location information, etc. etc.
> For arguments sake, lets call this the XML Feature Manifest
> 2) Tie down a syntax -- presumably canonical XML -- to
> store XFM.
> 3) XML parser writers would be encouraged to provide
> an XFM so that humans and programs alike can determine
> what the parser does and does not support.
> 4) XML Document Creators would be encouraged to
> tack an XFM onto their document collections so
> that humans and programs alike can determine
> what XML features the document-set requires.
This seems like an excellent suggestion... much better than
inventing another language, and besides, the XFM would be
great input into the SML analysis process.
Personally, I cannot see the value of SML... though I
understand where people are coming from regarding it.
If people *really* want another format for high-performance
situations, I'm not even convinced that the XML-ish syntax
is ideal. It seems to me that maybe people are trying to
ride on the XML hype...
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)