XML.orgXML.org
FOCUS AREAS |XML-DEV |XML.org DAILY NEWSLINK |REGISTRY |RESOURCES |ABOUT
OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] ten years later, time to repeat it?

----- Original Message From: "Eric van der Vlist"

> When people say "XML is hard", they usually do not mean "XML 1.0 is
> hard" but "XML 1.0 + namespaces in XML + XPath + DOM + XSLT + W3C XML
> Schema + XML Base + xml:id + XInclude + XPointer + ... is hard" and the
> proportion of criticism that goes to XML 1.0 itself is usually pretty
> low. In other words, I don't think that subsetting only XML 1.0 (or even
> only XML 1.0 + namespaces) would be very useful.

So I'm wondering, what do others think of as XML when Simon says 
"...creating a subset of XML..."?

Pete Cordell
Codalogic
Visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/ for XML C++ data binding





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS