[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
- To: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:38:16 -0600
Ann Navarro wrote:
>
> XML does not have to use a single blessed DTD to be interoperable, as seems
> to be the claims of several here.
Insofar as one doesn't need validation, fixed attribute defaults, etc.,
and only requires a well-defined syntax for a file, this is true.
Curly brackets killed round brackets and now pointy brackets are
ready to work on curly.
XML 1.0 makes a nice portable format. Interoperation is a bigger
problem
and that is what others are saying.
XML like some dotcoms out there, is a bit overvalued. This isn't to say
it isn't
valuable, only that it is only valuble AS-applied. We are having a
devil of a time
in X3D making it more valuable with DOM, CSS etc. because
we need a high performance framework, and unfortunately so far, that
means a monolith design. Certainly, it is page integratable
just as any object is, but to provide say, XML Namespace
interoperation and integration, we would have to accept
reduced performance and substantial bloat.
Please, someone prove that wrong. I'd love to see it,
but as far as one can tell, SVG-like integration isn't
in the cards.
Still, TEI is a good place to start for Gutenberg. Carving
up a DTD isn't that hard. I guess if one originally got
used to 28001, 87269, DocBook etc., it all looks cherry.
Thank God the FOSI died along the way. :-)
len
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
