[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Generic XML Tag Closer </> (GXTC)
- From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Rick Jelliffe said:
> I think Juan needs to look at goal # 10 for XML "Terseness is of minimal
> importance"
I think that would be "Terseness is of minimal importance but when is not"
> 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
- DTD vs Schema vs other
- <tag></tag> vs. </tag>
- Multiple sintaxes for authoring
- DTD entities vs, PI entities, vs. Schema entities vs...
- XSL-FO vs CSS.
- HTML link vs. Xlinx vs. Hlink
- Etc.
Option for </> is of "minimal importance" in this landscape of options.
> SGML still exists (and is widely used in some traditional sectors
> (despite the hype)) and
> he can use that to get </>.
And is suitable for the web?
> 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.
> But its value comes from its being a standard.
Success in this world becomes from a sum of three main contributions:
1) technical points
2) Standarization
3) Marketing
XML benefits from the three. 2) without 1) is not succesful in the long
run and i think that XML is succesful, not in the original goal of "SGML
for the web" but like generic data format.
> Juan is correct that allowing </> has little effect on the complexity of
> a parser, just as
> allowing comments, PIs, CDATA, different literal delimiters, numeric
> character references,
> the built-in character references, and empty tags don't require much to
> support. Compared to the complexity of supporting DTDs, entities,
> multiple character sets. But what about
> short-tags on start tags, attribute name omission, and tag-ommission? A
> line has to be drawn somewhere, and the argument against </> isnt
> complexity but readability. The fact that LMNL supports something says
> exactly nothing about what XML should support.
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.
> As an example of an XML-size language that relaxes a lot of XML's rules
> and accepts more of SGML, see ECS (Editor's Concrete Syntax) which is
> what Topologi's markup editor uses for SGML editing.
> http://www.topologi.com/resources/pdfs/ECS.pdf
>
> It accepts </> as well, and can be quite easily converted to XML. I am
> sure other people have similar little languages (though perhaps not
> grounded properly in the standard like ECS is.)
Thanks by the link but if i understood original message opening this
thread the point was to add extra funcionality to available XML. Since i
know a bit the (political?) difficulties to do that i has suggested
ConciseXML because has funcionality of XML and add extra stuff can be
_vital_ to some.
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe
>
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]