[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I don't think it's a given.
>
> The Core WG charter says:
>
> The WG will also study the advisability of a version 2.0 of the XML
> specification and may undertake the preparation of such a
> specification, if deemed advisable.
>
> (http://www.w3.org/2001/12/xmlbp/xml-core-wg-charter.html#deliverables) [*]
>
> I don't think we've done any serious study on this question yet.
>
> I have heard a vast range of views on what XML 2.0 should be if there
> is one, from a unification of XML 1.x + Namespaces + Infoset + no
> substantive changes to a completely redesigned language.
Richard that would be a good starting place.
Although I believe that Infoset is still a generically a
Data specific extention to XML.
So XML is a Definition of a Language to Create other languages.
Some times those other languages don't deal with Specifics of
how DATA should be encoded. but how a tag should be handled
(XHTML would be such a beast if it was implemented purely as
a presentation layer, BTW if XHTML is becomeing a Fully generic
XML platform in version 2, what is its usefulness??, before when it
was just a translation of html 4.01 to xml with no real work to seperate
out the multitude of languages internal to the spec (frames, forms, simple
links etc etc)
Well anyway back to XML 2.0. Yes a implemenation that takes Namespaces
into account from the very beginning would be a good thing. Infoset, would
probably be a good thing that is Included as a supported Item, it allows for
each language to choose its infoset that it needs for its language. But perhaps
standardization on specific standards for infosets would be a good thing also.
It would be easier for generated languages to work together in a future
implementation
(example given, XHTML, MATHML and SVG Profile)
one can dream can they not;)
Douglas
|
