[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Sure and we did SGML before that. I think the
SW is well-thought through. Bray et al stated
a position well. Let's give credit where credit
is due. I also think the Common XML is well
stated. Applause all round. There isn't a
consensus but there are serious efforts to
figure out a different layering strategy to
XML 1.0.
We could probably make a pretty good list of
the logical layers at this point. That is the
documentation side of the job. But a subset
or a new definition for the core comes down
to essentially a "next release version of
the software" that several vendors all have
to agree to support. What I don't see here
on XML-Dev are vendors clamoring to do that.
Why not? If a real tear in the fabric of
interoperability of XML systems is imminent,
shouldn't they be more concerned? If it
isn't, then what else but performance gains
for particular applications is at stake?
I see via Don Box, Bosworth et al, instead,
a proposal for a binary, which I thought to
be an even more contentious issue.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@rbii.com]
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:38 am, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> I agree that less needs to be in the subset
> and it really needs to be a subset, not a
> wholesale restart on the core, but
> it represents a point of view and from
> people who took on the task before.
Sure, as a platform for debate, XML-SW is a fine starting point. I think there
are probably a few other such platforms too: CommonXML being one, and XML-SW
minus all the bits I discussed could be another. FWIW. Both you and I
participated in the early XML efforts, as did a fairly significant set of
other people. That alone doesn't buy credibility.
> It is worth looking at because it mirrors
> positions about what a core should be that
> will have to be dealt with sooner or later.
Yes. We've already seen that it's somewhat contentious as it stands.
|
