[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: more grist
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Ben Trafford <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:16:10 -0600
So the InfoSet takes the role of the
SGML Declaration sort of (not tied
to a specific syntax)?
Doesn't that push us back to precisely
where this chapter of the markup adventure
started? I can see the utility of a
comprehensive base infoset. My worries
come after that. This seems to come down
1. There will be privileged XML vocabularies
that have special semantics in XML processors.
True already. The provisions made for HTML
were considered 'pragmatic' but set a scandalous
precedent. The inventors of HTML
make those decisions. House rules and choice
of means of choosing means prevailed: choose
W3C, choose Berners-Lee. That's not personal.
That is the way the means are chosen. It has
worked until this hiccup.
2. The rules for extending the privileged
vocabularies or adding to their number are
not known at this time and may never be.
Since XML is W3C property, I assume the
same means to choose means prevail.
When Henry or whoever can publicly provide a plan here,
I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, the critics are
right about XML Schemas. It is just another
vocabulary. It is a post XML infoset language with
its own property sets that force loopbacks to
the XML property set through the sharing of
properties with other languages such as XPath.
There will be no end of this and we will satisfy
the naysayers (the relentless march of abstraction)
by showing quite dramatically tnat not only 90% of
the XML specs fail, but that XML 1.0 itself fails.
FUD or unavoidable precipice?
So, well-formed anybody? InfoSets next? Sheesh.
Groves and grove plans just like the HyTime guys
said it would be. I don't think that avoidable
unless someone wants to redo the base infoSet
to accomodate a limited set of vocabularies,
but I think the slope is becoming ice quickly.
Is Rick J. right? Do it but don't call it XML?
Does that 'renaming' save us anything but
admitting we need something like groves and
grove plans? In my opinion, once you take
away lexical unification (same syntax),
by definition, by Draconian rule, it quits
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Ben Trafford [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
However, tying it to something like the Infoset, and through that,
the sort of things you might see in XML Schema, or TREX, or RELAX, might
make sense. That way, the implementation is tied to no specific syntax,
while maintaining the features that schemas offer.