[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
It starts to be a problem when one has to
move bare XML around and the framework is
overzealously stuffing declarations into
the syntax. Some users of XML should be
SGML users instead. One case is network
messaging that interfaces to RF systems
where size matters a lot (RF is comparable
to 9600-14.4 systems). Sometimes it is
simply a matter of getting them to understand
what XSLT is doing to "help" and why copy-of
is a bad idea for their particular code even
if it looks like tight code. Until they
really understand what the infoset is for
XSLT, they stumble.
Otherwise, from my perspective, the XML-SW
is a very sensible place to start.
len
From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@flightlab.com]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Question: how many of you participating in this
> thread have read Tim Bray's XML-SW paper at
> textuality.com?
>
> http://www.textuality.com/xml/xmlSW.html
>
> Perhaps we should, for a strawman's sake, put
> that one proposal on the table here on XML-Dev
> and debate its merits vis a vis our different
> applications.
We could do that.
As for me, I'll stay out of the debate, since
I don't think there's anything worth discussing:
XML-SW is right on the mark.
> My objection to it was including namespaces
> in THE core. If it is not the core, nevermind;
> it is a good place to start on a subset.
My feeling is, as long as we're stuck with XML Namespaces
to begin with, XML-SW is as good a place as any to put them.
|
