Re: [xml-dev] ten years later, time to repeat it?

["Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>]

On 12/02/2008, Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:

> In any case, my proposal is _just_ subsetting, not redesign.

It would be interesting to categorise what constitues Good XML and Bad
XML.  If there's a concensus and clear distinction between the two
give the Good XML a name, call it an XML Pattern to encourage its use
and the subset is born :0)

The poeple on this list must have come across some real abuses of XML
over the years...

- use of defaulted values, especially namespaces!  (surely the worst
out of the lot)
- declaring the same namespace twice eg  <root xmlns="abc.com"
xmlns:abc="abc.com"><abc:elem>...
- over zealous use of cdata sections (around every text node for example)
- double escaping &amp;#160; to get around encoding issues
- just using <propery name="elem">content</property> for everything
- wedging in extra content using delimiters: <elem
category="category::subcategory">


cheers
-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/