Le mardi 12 février 2008 à 07:56 -0500, Simon St.Laurent a écrit :
> Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> > I don't think that subsetting only XML 1.0 (or even
> > only XML 1.0 + namespaces) would be very useful.
>
> I think it would be the right place to start, however. It's unfortunate
> that so much effort has been put into burying the 'XML' core under
> specifications that boggle users and implementers alike. Lots of
> applications and users, however, either don't bother with the crap on
> top, or decide on their own subset in those layers, and do just fine.
>
> > That means that you should probably cleanup the most basic pieces (XML
> > 1.0 + namespaces in XML + XML Base + xml:id) and provide a kind of
> > "specifications profiles" explaining how the upper pieces can safely and
> > sanely be selected and used together.
> >
> > This also means that you'd have to debate over highly controversial
> > stuff such as namespaces and schema languages.
>
> Schema languages (except DTDs, for now) aren't actually part of XML.
Of course, we all know that on this list, but the general perception (at
least as far I can see) is that XML includes W3C XML Schema.
> Namespaces, though completely broken in theory, don't cause that much
> trouble in practice, once you learn that thinking about the theory only
> causes unnecessary pain.
Sure, technically speaking you're 110% right. OTH, namespaces are one of
the arguments people keep pushing when they want to reject XML (as whole
or not). That was the first argument Dave Winer threw on RSS 1.0 back in
2000 and last year at XTech 2007, this was again one of the main
arguments the WHATWG threw against XHTML 2.0. And people keep doing that
because they've noticed that we can't seriously deny that XML namespaces
are insane and because we've written it many times in the past.
XML namespaces are like a big boil on the nose of a candidate for the
presidential election. You can argue that this is minor and won't change
the ability to govern the country and you'd be right. However, I don't
think any serious candidate would take the risk to keep it!
> XML Base, XML Include, and (to a lesser degree) xml:id aren't my
> favorite specs, but they do operate at the foundation level and at this
> point should probably be wrapped in, yes.
>
> Making it a principle that the subset's documents have to work with
> existing XML 1.0 processors probably leaves all of the original specs
> (NS, XI, XB, xml:id) outside of XML 1.0 itself in a conformance gray
> area. Over the very long term, though, wrapping them together should
> actually make it easier to deploy them.
Yes.
> Anyway, we'll see what happens. The thought experiment has already
> generated interesting conversations, so I'd call it a success so far.
Sure!
Eric
> Thanks,
> Simon St.Laurent
> Retired XML troublemaker
> http://simonstl.com/
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>
--
GPG-PGP: 2A528005
Lisez-moi sur XMLfr.
http://xmlfr.org/index/person/eric+van+der+vlist/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=