[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
- From: Rick Jelliffe <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:32:02 +0800
From: "Eric van der Vlist" <email@example.com>
> Would it be XML 1.0, XML 1.0 + namespaces, XML 1.0 + namespaces
> + W3C XML Schema, ...
I think W3C XML Schemas is really XML + namespace + XPath + Datatypes +
Structures, since these are all referenced normatively. Specs which build
on others are much bigger than they appear: having thin layers or simply
expressed layers is nice, but when the normatively referenced standards are
enormous, any even a thin layer is effectively just as enormous.
Is it "metathesis" where a part is substitution for the whole (like "sail"
being used for ship)? It is just a normal part of English. So we cannot
expect people won't use XML for the whole thing. That confusion between
poetical use and the specific use cannot be banished.