OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

I agree that less needs to be in the subset 
and it really needs to be a subset, not a 
wholesale restart on the core, but 
it represents a point of view and from 
people who took on the task before.  It 
is worth looking at because it mirrors 
positions about what a core should be that 
will have to be dealt with sooner or later.
Better sooner and better in public than 
in the W3C committees.  I am reacting to 
the vociferous calls for a sanctioned subset 
that seem to promote fear of forking but 
that offer no clear alternative except 
a consistent dislike for DTDs, entities, 
and PIs.  On another side, some dislike 
the xml: reserved names, namespaces, and 
the infoset.

So what would a consensus look like? The 
first consensus needs to be that action is 
required at all because there is a third 
position that says, when in strong doubt, 
do nothing (the General Allenby approach).


From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@rbii.com]

On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:05 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> >I disagree. As I said at the start of the thread, XML-SW bundles
> > namespaces, xml:space, xml:lang, xml:base and infoset, which I think is a
> > mistake.
> Fair enough.  I said it is a place to start.  If all of the subset
> supporters and detractors are arguing about the same document, then that is
> a satisfactory way to begin.  If they can't do that, there is little use in
> beginning.

I understand your desire, but I think it's best to start minimal and build up.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS