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 ]

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
> 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>


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

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