|
|
Re: [xml-dev] The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim,
I suspect I could regret asking these questions. Please accept them as moderately innocent questions, not primarily provocations.
In a message dated 22/02/2003 17:10:36 GMT Standard Time, tbray@textuality.com writes:
I understand the proposed XML parsing facility in J2ME accepts not XML
but a nonstandard subset which does not allow for the DOCTYPE
declaration.
Hasn't it been the case since 16th November 1999 that there is an "XML" language which "doesn't allow for the DOCTYPE declaration"?
It's called XPath.
It's OK to define a custom language for your own purposes,
but it's not OK at all to use the term "XML" in describing it;
So we shouldn't refer to the "XML Path Language"?
this term is very precisely defined
Um. Oh Really???
So what is the definition of "XML"? :) ... (ducks while permathread begins)
I remain to be convinced that there is, now, any precise definition for "XML".
and is legally protected by the World Wide Web Consortium;
Is it really?
anyone who offers software with XML in the name which is
deliberately non-conformant to the specification is putting themselves
in a very shaky position both legally and technically.
Tim,
I just wonder if your post is a little over the top.
I am open to being convinced that there is something really to get concerned about, but I am not immediately impressed that something intrinsically or qualitatively different from the creep in the definition of "XML" e.g. with XPath, Infoset, PSVI that has taken place over the last 3 or 4 years is taking place here.
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|