[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Generic XML Tag Closer </> (GXTC)
- From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: xml-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:41:13 +1000
juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote:
> Rick Jelliffe said:
>
>> and also the goal that there should be as few optional features as
>> possible.
>>
>
> Well, i think that XML is very contrary to that goal.
>
> - elements vs attributes
>
Elements and attributes are not optional in XML 1.0. You are confusing
optionality with
syntactic sugar.
> - DTD vs Schema vs other
>
Schemas are not part of XML 1.0
> - <tag></tag> vs. </tag>
>
Support for these is not optional in XML 1.0
> - Multiple sintaxes for authoring
>
What does that mean?
> - DTD entities vs, PI entities, vs. Schema entities vs...
>
Support for parameter entities is optional, in the sense that a
non-validating parser that finds a
document with standalone="yes" does not need to process the external
subset of the prolog.
There is no such thing as a PI entity (even in SGML). There is no such
thing as a Schema entity.
> - XSL-FO vs CSS.
>
These are not part of XML 1.0
> - HTML link vs. Xlinx vs. Hlink
>
These are not part of XML 1.0
>> XML was not created to be a perfect language
>> that would suit everyone. It was designed to be SGML deliverable over
>> the web. Of course if you have different goals you will generate a
>> different language.
>>
>
> Therefore the X of XML does not mean eXtensible to suit user needs. When
> XML was designed first time, people decided what would be in and what
> would be out. I see no problem with review this again with an eye in
> future XML.
>
If you go to Wimbledon, it is useless to sit at a court where the match
has finished and
demand a rematch to the empty stadium. You have to go to the court where
a game is
still being played. In XML's case, the games being played at the moment
are the fast
infoset and the XML pipelining work.
> Sure! but one can extend that argument and the fact that XML 1 does not
> support something says exactly nothing about what a XML 2 should support.
>
>
How ridiculous.
If there is an XML 2, it will be a consolidation of the existing pending
fiddles that are
floating so fecklessly about at W3C, in the light of a stronger
processing model that
gives some meaning to them: XML 1.1 - DTD + namespaces + xml:base +
xml:include
+ xml:whatever + processing model.
There will be that XML 1.0, XML 2.0 as above, plus a binary version,
plus JSON, as the dominant players, AFAIKS.
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]