[
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).
len
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.
|
