[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:18:03 -0500
To support John's position, here is quote of Tim Bray from Cafe Con Leche
"The only normative definition of XML is syntactical. The only normative
definition of namespaces is syntactical. These definitions are implemented
by tons of interoperable software. The Infoset, simply because it has come
after XSLT and XPath and DOM and SAX chronologically, is an afterthought.
The PSVI is an elaboration of that afterthought. Working programmers are
generating XML with various flavors of print() statement and reading it
through a variety of interfaces (including Notepad :)) and not apparently
having too much difficulty.
--Tim Bray on the xml-dev mailing list "
Most of the issues that seem to come up as regards a review and rework of
are about the application languages, frameworks, abstract specifications etc
attached to XML 1.0. XML 1.0 is stable. Given its grounding in syntax,
many of the other model issues never will be to everyone's satisfaction.
It is imperative to remain parsimonious with efforts to change the original
given that it is possible to further destabilize the models and increase
the tool churning that slows adoption.
<aside>Congratulations to Elliotte Rusty Harold (the Cafe Con Leche man)
for getting new version of the XML Bible on
the store shelves and many thanks for the online
From: John Evdemon [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
On Friday, October 12, 2001 8:08 AM, David Lyon wrote:
> Since XML 1.0 has been with us for around 4 years, it seems
> to me that it may well be time that some specifications for version 2.0
> to take place.
XML Version 1.0 hasn't changed (aside from some errata corrections) since
How has it become such a big beast?