Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....

[Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>]

David Brownell wrote:
> 
> > From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
> >
> > Perhaps we should stop talking about the family of specs surrounding XML as
> > if they _are_ XML itself. That is to say, defining "XML in totality" is akin
> > to defining binary logic (simple) and defining the latest multiGHz Pentium
> > IV with a gazillion gates _as_ part of "binary logic in totality".
> 
> I've talked about "XML" and "Greater XML" ... most folk can understand
> that, by analogy to cities:  "Boston" is much more approachable than "the
> Greater Boston Metropolitan Area".  Is there a better metaphor to hand?

Not a better, but the same with a shift...

Maybe we should change the name for "Smaller XML" if people won't change
the name for "Greater XML" and just call our downtown XML "core XML" ?

Now, the next problem is what would be "core XML" ?

Would it be XML 1.0, XML 1.0 + namespaces, XML 1.0 + namespaces + W3C
XML Schema, ...

My personal feeling would be that it should be XML 1.0 + namespaces but
I don't think it will make an unanimity!

Eric

> - Dave
> 
-- 
Pour y voir plus clair dans la nebuleuse XML...
                                          http://dyomedea.com/formation/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org      http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------