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 ]

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. 


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 
 >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.


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

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