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] Wikipedia on XML

rjelliffe@allette.com.au schrieb am 25.08.2009 um 15:03:14 (+1000):

> There is no tomorrow. XML has a version number, but it cannot be
> used.

Well, at least it's version 1.0, not 0.1. But I've heard that
before: Why can't the version number be used? Because of the
massive set of X++ technologies built on top of 1.0 by so many
different parties?

> XML has no effective conditional text system.

Parameter entities plus INCLUDE/IGNORE? Not pretty, but effective
enough to appear working..

> Namespaces have no versioning system. Schemas have no versioning
> system.

XSLT uses version number! If needed, a version number can always
be introduced at the application level. Same namespace, new version
number - and the application figures it out.

> We have no system for saying "this namespace is a subset
> of that namespace (therefore applications written to accept that
> namespace can handle this one, with the appropriate URI change".)

That seems to assume the local parts are moreless the same. Then
why not use the same namespace? A simple @version or @type or
@whatnot on the document element could be used to convey the
information that otherwise would be in the namespace.

> XML does not have the infrastructure to support the large,
> evolving, mission-critical applications (including office
> applications) well. This is caused by the fixation that the
> mechanics of sending a file from A to B is the only issue to
> consider: that behind the scenes issues are better left to
> proprietary and individual efforts.

It would be horrible if XML was as complicated as SOAP. Who wants
something like SOAP should build and use something like SOAP. They
overwhelmingly proved they can do it using XML.

> So the DTD idea that real life is so chaotic you better have a
> custom setting for each document, with whatever explicit
> overrides, is really out of step!

Do you mean the internal subset?

If so, I can't see how it aligns with the other examples of XML
laissez-faire, laissez-passer you gave - other than there being a
vague notion of XML being liberal, even permissive. After all,
nobody is forced to apply custom settings to each document. I
certainly don't. But sometimes it's very useful.

Michael Ludwig

[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