[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 9:31 AM +0100 10/27/02, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>I do think that the current situation is a disaster for extensibility.
>
I think XML 1.0 was designed to be extensible at the markup level. I
think it's succeeded very well in that respect. Just look at the
plethora of vocabularies out there. That's what the X in XML is about.
I think that quite wisely XML 1.0 was not designed to be extensible
at the syntax level, and I feel that efforts to change or extend the
syntax are contrary to the spirit of XML, will lead to significant
confusion, and cause interoperability problems.
SGML is extensible at the syntax level, including the ability to
change character sets and even change which characters delimit tags.
Those few applications that truly need this level of extensibility
should consider using SGML instead of XML.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| XML in a Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002) |
| http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
