[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups
- From: David Lyon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:59:20 +1000
I disagree with your statement about difficulty. There are many parts of
xml 1.0 that are particularly difficult and innefficient. One only has to
look to the questions posted on this list to see that.
My point is that there is always room for constant improvement in everything
and XML is no exception. Our whole Western civilisation is based on this
XML hasn't been that successful in the world, yet. There are many tweeks that
would make it easier to use and more widespread in its application.
I'm sure that a lot of people would like to be involved in the production of
a more streamline Version 2.0 specification. They can still use their various
flavours of print() statements and notepad as they do today as I don't see
how or why this would need to be lost.
On Saturday 13 October 2001 02:18, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 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
> 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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Evdemon [mailto:email@example.com]
> 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
> February 1998.
> How has it become such a big beast?