Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: William Lindsey <email@example.com>, Don Park <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 11:20:39 -0800
> This, of course, breaks compatibility with XML. A bad idea,
> in my opinion. I'd be much more interested in exploring
> the possibility of codifying a restricted subset of XML that
> can work with the tools I have (psgml, SAX, XSLT, etc.):
> Once you've decided to leave XML compatibility behind.
I don't think anybody realy wants to avoid XML compability.
As far as I remember, in the original SML posting
Don was talking about the susbset of XML and
I think the objective remains the same. Right ?
By XML compatibility I mean that idealy any SML file
should be processed by existing XML APIs and tools
without any pre/post processing of SML file.
However, if there is some *very* serious reason to
break this kind of compatibitily, it would be very
interesting to know why SML should get the feature
that breaks such compatibility with XML.
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)