Lists Home |
Date Index |
Cavnar-Johnson, John wrote:
> This specification
> defines a particular application of XML and the style of document that
> that application uses.
John, you're the third knowledgeable person I've seen claim this in
as many weeks. This is not an application of XML. Something like
MathML or RSS is an application of XML. And even if you and I
couldn't agree on what an XML application is, and we chose your
definition it still wouldn't be an application of XML. It would be
an application of an XML Infoset. XML 1.0 is just one possible
serialization of a SOAP message.
> As long as it doesn't purport to define a
> generalized XML parser, why is it wrong? This application won't accept
> all well-formed XML documents, but so what?
You might want to read the document. It talks about XML and sings
its praises, much more that it does the actual subset it defines.
From a specification viewpoint, what is wanted is the assertion,
upfront, that this JSR uses a subset of XML, names that subset and
releases any claims to XML. That belongs in 1.2, Main Goals and
Deliverables. That way, we can evaluate the JSR on its own merits,
not XML's. Anything else is bait and switch.
> Must every application that
> uses XML accept any XML document?
I think we can dismiss the argument from application.
> What's the danger here?
Briefly it's an economic danger, not a technical one. A technical
danger one wouldn't so much - we've known since SQL was standardized
that developers love a challenge. But subsetting ups the cost of
bridging systems claiming to use XML and that does matter.
Bill de hÓra