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

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

On 15 Jun 2001 17:01:21 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> > 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...

I think I'd actually be happier if the W3C and other organizations
stopped prefacing everything with XML.  "XML Schema" reads to me like
"THE schema language for XML", as does "XML Query".  I get both
confirmations and denials that the W3C intends that reading.

> 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!

Just as a reminder, there is "Common XML", which is XML 1.0 with
Namespaces and warning labels all over features which have potential
interoperability issues:
http://simonstl.com/articles/cxmlspec.txt

I'm also starting to discuss "markup" as technology, and citing basic
XML rules as the most interoperable.  XML has morphed into a marketing
term (and the power of raw markup, in many ways, forgotten), but the
underlying technology is still useful and worth promoting.