Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: W. E. Perry [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 2:34 PM
> To: XML DEV
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun
> "Cavnar-Johnson, John" wrote:
> > How would standardizing a class of processors that don't process the
> > internal subset, entities, etc. jeopardize what you have achieved?
> > there are costs to my proposal that I don't see now, I would like to
> > them, but don't impute to me positions that I do not hold. Your
> > processor(s) can still handle the documents that these systems would
> > produce. If you use the features that are eliminated from the
> > consumers of your documents would need to use a processor capable
> > of dealing with them. Is that cost really significant, and if so,
> > explain?
> As last week's discussion made clear, such processors are
> the XML Rec. That is the reason de jure not to create documents
> such processors and then call either those documents or those
I'm afraid you are begging the question here. I'm specifically
advocating a new standard. You are wrong in saying that those documents
would not be XML. As I am proposing a strict subset for parser
conformance, to claim that these documents would not be XML is factually
I have snipped a long, interesting and totally irrelevant description of
> Now as you say:
> > If you use the features that are eliminated from the subset, then
> > consumers of your documents would need to use a processor capable of
> > dealing with them. Is that cost really significant, and if so,
> > explain?
> I imagine you now see that I must expect that consumers of my
> using a processor conformant to the XML Rec. Sure, there are plenty of
> where what I produce and publish could be handled by some subset
> worrying about what those cases are, or worrying at all about how any
> consumer of documents has to be treated differently from every other
> potential consumer of those same documents, obviates the essential
> of the well-formed-XML-plus-internetwork-topology paradigm.
The real question is whether there is an advantage in redefining the
meaning of well-formed that obviates the disadvantages. I gather you
think not. I disagree.
> There is also
> risk on the other side, which I alluded to in the earlier post.
> form in which documents are created is conditioned by agreements
> creator and its expected consumers, the risk is that they will agree
> out-of-band semantics which allow them to reduce the content of the
> itself. On the basis of such agreements the 'expected' creators and
> consumers become a cartel from which I am excluded, and their
> become impoverished of information with which I might otherwise
> useful processing. That cost is not only significant, but potentially
> not only to what I can do today but to the larger promise of XML.
Nothing I'm proposing impacts that risk, as far as I can tell.