[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
So we repeat the experience of YetAnotherSubset.
SGML was designed for Generalized Markup. XML
was designed for MarkupOnTheWeb. XMLSubsets
would be designed for .... what? Niceness?
It might be better to let the whats sort that out
for awhile before prematurely designing subsets.
Then when there is a call from several application
domains with credible fielding, begin the work.
Meanwhile binaries are being designed as evidenced
by the MPEG and X3D work. These are created to
satisfy particular needs and that seems best, at
least, it seems focused, has the least impact
on the overall web architecture, and provides
information to best practices while restraining
the costs to those prepared and willing to bear them.
As Alaric points out, gzip gives a good file size
and if that were the only consideration, no binary
is needed. Experience says that size is not the
only reason for a binary. The data structures
impact the performance given a network messaging
scenario. So with some time, something was learned.
Is it time to discuss specifying XML subsets? Sure.
Is it time to pick one or two? I'm not convinced.
Again, the rationale proposed is "fear of what is
growing in the wild" and that might be seen as
an unreasonable need for control when the applications
that have the requirement in the wild are already
controlling this. Let a thousand flowers grow?
Maybe. I've just not seen the evidence that the
needs outweigh the risks yet.
Make no standard before it is time.
len
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
It would be *nice* if there were open standard(s) for things like XML subsets that are
easier to parse and/or alternative serializations of the infoset that are
more efficient to exchange over standard protocols. I suspect that a lot
of people are reinventing the same wheels, and it would be nice to see
standards in this area.
|
