[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yep. I agree.
Interestingly, some think it useful
to strip the names on the way out, turn it
into CSV, then restore these on the other
end of the pipe. It's a closed system
of course, but one where size makes a
difference (RF systems).
It is too minimal when it stops
being XML. I've seen examples where
that has to be the case so XML ubiquity
isn't everything, but that is a red
herring. I was noting in my
reply that if we go more minimal than
elements, it stops being anything an
XML processor should care about. IOW,
there is an absolute bottom to XML but
we may say that this is not the same
as the features an XML processor should
support, even one based on a subset.
What the subset SHOULD be is evidently
disputable or application-specific.
len
From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean.mcgrath@propylon.com]
[Len Bullard]
>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:
> 2.2 Elements
> 2.3 Attributes
> 2.4 Namespaces
> 2.5 Textual Content and now revise that to unbundle the namespaces
>so elements, attributes, text are core. Given there are those who
>say attributes are a botch, an even more conservative position is
>elements, text and if we go more minimal than that, we are back to CSV.
No. CSV goes too far because you loose the very essence of what gives
XML its modelling power - named nodes in a directed acyclic graph.
|
