Lists Home |
Date Index |
Favored is a strong term, but OK. What would be
interesting would be a comparison of Common XML
and XML-SW to determine what features two groups
considered essential and how they differ. You say
the essential subset is:
2.5 Textual Content
and now revise that to unbundle the namespaces so
elements, attributes, text
Given there are those who say attributes are a botch,
an even more conservative position is
and if we go more minimal than that, we are back to CSV.
I have seen message types with exactly that last set
plus the XML declaration, so it isn't unthinkable but
I'm not sure it's worth a dll.
It would be interesting to hear from the supporters
of a subset if their applications can work with only
the features of either of those two extreme minimal
subsets, or even the documented Common XML core. Given
the extensions, Common XML is XML, yes? So what does
it achieve except to document where the reliability
begins to drop off, and that is a claim in need of
some documentation itself. No aspersions intended,
Simon, just a desire that as this thread continues,
we make sure we are debating verified results and not
our intuitions unless we denote them as such.
<rant>Everyone claims that they are defending "interoperability"
yet I don't find a definition for that term so I
have to wonder if all are defending the same thing.
I've yet to figure out how XML succeeded because
it provides "interoperability". It provides a common
syntax for exchanging data via some transport (network,
floppy, carrier pigeon with text wrapped around the
good leg). That is where markup stops but the claims
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
Common XML  started with a core - one I now suspect may be too big,
largely because of namespaces - and then described layers beyond that
That might be a good operation to perform on Len's favored XML-SW early
on; I suspect doing that might well lead to the 'unbundling' of
namespaces, xml:xyz, and the infoset.
 - http://simonstl.com/articles/cxmlspec.txt