[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Thanks for that summary. I noted also from the TAG
list the action for Liam to begin to look at the
issue. What I haven't seen is a decision to
create a new class of parser and much of the
subset discussions come down to that when
the costs are assessed, and it will ripple
into every area of XML application or support.
At least this is one that can be done at
leisure and not in haste as XML itself was
done. That is why a review of XML-SW, Common
XML, the SOAP requirements and so forth are a
good exercise.
It will raise hell in the documentation world
where DTDs and entities remain an article of much effort
and considerable benefit. Again and as loudly
as I can say it, a fracture between the documentation
and message worlds of XML will have serious
consequences for XML. Caveat vendor.
Yes, the consensus among those
who desire a subset is to take out DTDs, DOCTYPEs,
and entities. What cannot be decided at this
time is not simply which specifications cannot
be supported by an implementation that relies on
these features, but how to proceed in the case
that an implementation that requires the features
being removed would proceed given a new implementation
or specification built over the subset. Duplication
leads to more revisions in the code base. That
has costs.
len
From: Cavnar-Johnson, John [mailto:JCavnar-Johnson@sark.com]
I think there is a great deal more consensus than the discussion on this
list would lead you to believe.
|
