[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I'm an advocate of subsetting. I think Common XML got it right on
features, including the restriction on Namespaces. The question becomes
how does this subset relate to other XML recommendations, including
future ones. I think it will be easier for parser writers to support
the infoset, xml:base, etc. In fact, some specs probably ought to be
based on this subset (Canonical XML comes to mind). I really don't see a
big difference between Common XML, XML-SW, or the subset chosen by the
SOAP folks.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:33 AM
> To: 'Simon St.Laurent'; XML Dev
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun
>
> 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:
>
> 2.2 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.
> 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
> go on.</rant>
>
> len
>
>
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
>
> Common XML [1] started with a core - one I now suspect may be too big,
> largely because of namespaces - and then described layers beyond that
> core.
>
> 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.
>
> [1] - http://simonstl.com/articles/cxmlspec.txt
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
