[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> To make it clear, I have no qualms whatsoever about making this change
> in practice. I don't believe there are many legacy programs which
> exhibit the behavior you describe, nor do I feel that the cost of the
> change is particularly difficult, especially moving forward.
>
> Developers who follow my suggestion should be extremely unlikely to
> create the brain-dead <x:foo bar="junk" x:bar="junque"> or even <x:foo
> x:bar="junk">, thereby averting the continued creation of a larger mess.
>
> XML right now just keeps growing by agglomeration. I'd like to propose
> that users start chopping off the rotten bits even if the spec
> developers are presently unwilling.
Bravo, Simon! We need to give XML as it has been W3C-ed exactly the same
treatment as XML 1.0 gave SGML. I mean, did anyone really care about
breaking an SGML installation that used RANK? Ditto for <x:foo bar="junk"
x:bar="junque">.
Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm)
Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools: www.goose-works.org
XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
