[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I think Simon is taking a conservative view of what XML is,
and that is why one repeats the question from time to time,
what is Core. Some say XML 1.0, others say XML 1.0
plus namespaces, some say XML 1.0 plus
(name a subset of all the specs written for processing
XML in one context or another).
It is clear that this decision is not the same for all
processing contexts and that as a result one would properly
avoid levying constraints on XML 1.n that would limit its
use in some contexts, or increasing without justification
and consensus, the cost of applying it in some contexts.
There is no way out of this dilemma that will satisfy
every conceivable application of or implementor of XML
systems and it will be a headache for the XML specification
authors for the rest of XML's lifecycle. That is the price
of being the ring bearer (nightsweats).
So name the profile (heck, URI it and be consistent).
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com]
Simon St. Laurent wrote:
> Perhaps. At this point, I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that
> any effort to apply strong typing to markup is in fact "a whole new
> class of XML processing apps" - and one that shouldn't be confused
> with XML.
I think that you are saying that XML, as defined by the current XML
specifications, should not be confused with XML. I find that confusing.
|
