Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:23:33 -0500
I think you have the beginnings of a good plan.
I don't know RDF well enough to determine its
applicability here. I am curious to know,
in brief, if the others in this CC list consider
this the right way to go about meeting their
I agree with Tim that XML 1.0 is a syntax.
But the DTD stuff is in there too. I don't
have a problem with the current InfoSet but
I also don't see how DTDs can "go away" when
so much of the current specifications depends
on them definitively. It seems to me that
the plan you present is a shorter path than
rebuilding all of these to eliminate DTDs.
Am I missing something here? My point has
been literally, until something really breaks,
don't fix it. We have a delicate ecology of
specs that won't bear heavy feet well. If
this plan make them more robust for some subset
of this user community of designers, then
do this; otherwise, a lot more versions of
the applications that make us have to keep
rewriting fielded code for no profit just
to keep in sync will make the business types
mad as hell. That gaping hole in the schedule
thing. At some point, the implementations DO
have an influence on the specification.
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:email@example.com]
I agree. To make my point, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is
and define an XML property set. I believe the XML 1.0 productions
(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml) serve as a proper foundation to describe the
XML syntax. That's what this property set defines: syntax.