Lists Home |
Date Index |
firstname.lastname@example.org (Eric van der Vlist) writes:
>Isn't it what I have said ;-) ???
On re-reading, yes, though in the context of the conversation, the
notion that these problems come from XML 1.0 is something a lot of
people seem to have missed.
>The only way to cope with tool which are conservative in what they
>accept and perhaps liberal in what they discard is to be conservative
>in what you send!
Yes, or simply to write off those tools and not worry about it, which is
another common strategy.
>In any case, if the industry was going in that direction, we would need
>new types of schema languages: the current ones do filter the structure
>and content of XML documents without filtering any of the basic XML
>features. If XML "sub-profiles" (such as defined by SOAP) were to be
>widely used, we would also need schema languages to express the
>constraints defined by these profiles!
This area needs a lot more consideration in the next few years. It
seems pretty clear to me that "5-year review" ISO style has merit, even
if it doesn't explicitly mean a new version of XML.
I did some work in this area a long time ago, though it's pretty rough
and probably needs an update itself:
The "profile" section is probably the most interesting in this context,
and this fragment may provide a bit of an idea why:
<!ELEMENT profile EMPTY>
fragmentIdentifier CDATA "http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xptr"
linking CDATA "http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink"
xinclude CDATA (yes | no) "no"
xbase CDATA (yes | no) "no"
namespaces (yes | no) "yes"
namespacesonroot (yes | no) "no"
attinheritelemns (yes | no) "yes"
(Yes, I know fragmentIdentifier is supposed to go into MIME Media Type
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org