Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:12:09 -0800
- Thread-index: AcLcUAvNemwxqwGZQxyZh4a5olYmeQAAMF3Q
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun
Future versions of XML that don't make the infoset a first class
consideration are refusing to learn from history. For many people who
use XML, the syntax is incidental but the data model is not.
Secondly, even though I'm not an XML Web Services geek, I do know that
SOAP 1.2 is built on the Infoset not the XML 1.0 syntax and thus
question why anyone would think revisions to the XML 1.0 syntax spec
would affect SOAP if they don't manifest themselves in the XML Infoset.
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
A bank is where they lend you an umbrella and then ask for it back when
it begins to rain.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:59 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Ok. That's two for syntax-only but with a different set of
> features. I don't know if expanding into the Schema debates
> is necessary although it is clear that we have been
> conflating these requirements by discussing expansion of the
> xml: vocabulary for things like ids.
> Will the SOAP folks be happy with a 'syntax-only' subset?
> From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:Jeff.Lowery@creo.com]
> The XML I've used:
> 1. elements + attributes + data content [text nodes]
> 2. namespaces
> 3. internal entities
> 4. XML Schema
> 5. PIs
> Obviously, this is no one's subset. Of these, I would say 1
> is essential,
> 2 is necessary. I don't like the namespace prefix mechanism,
> and I would probably support the radical solution of
> designating an official namespace prefix registry, so that
> the prefix is synonymous with the URI. You might be able to
> get rid of Namespace URI's in that case, or at least mandate
> that such URIs, if they exist, refer to a RDDL doc. I don't
> expect that to be a popular suggestion, though.
> 3 could be replaced by a non-DTD declarations. External
> entities can, also, though I don't use them myself (at least
> the DTD versions).
> Number 4 is definitely a layer on top, although a purely
> structural metalanguage (no types, just form) might be
> feasible for core. Something like a simplified DTD, but
> using element/attribute syntax. Even RELAX NG is too much, I think.
> PI mechanisms can be replaced by a targeted processing
> vocabulary in XML syntax. It could be useful if XML
> components could be designated as "skip parsing" (like
> CDATA), unless it's the target application. I'm not sure
> about that, though.
> I agree with Gavin about Infosets: NIMBY.
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org
> <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>