Re: [xml-dev] hackable xml

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

> Abandoning well-formedness in the name of simplicity is almost
> certainly the wrong approach to take.

Its the same argument for dropping a single root element.  Plus
remember, this is not XML 2.0 and nothing will be abandoned as it will
still exist in XML.  This is an alternative to XML, that will exist
alongside.

> Without CDATA and entities, how do I supply

You continue to use XML.

>> 3. PIs, CDATA sections gone
>
> No stylesheets.

I advise against using that already, but remember: this is not a
replacement, if you want to use the stylesheet PI then use XML.

>> 4. Encoding must be UTF-8 (or some similar rule: its to remove the
>> potential mismatch between the encoding in the prolog and the actual
>> encoding)
>
> "   "
>
> Oh, hell, let's just make 'em all use ASCII, why not?

Im not sure what point you are making there?


>> been involved with.  I have never, ever, seen 2 prefixes with
>> different namespaces in the same document.  There is no need to map a
>
> Heh.  I have, often enough.

You have seen 2 prefixes mapped to different namespaces in the same
document, in the real world?  If so, no problem, continue to use XML.


>> prefix to a namespace, the prefix provides all the uniqueness
>> necessary within a domain, global uniqueness isn't needed.  This would
>
> ?  So, how big is the domain?

In my opinion for any given domain the prefix is unique enough, and
already sufficient to identify (or brand) the dialect within that
domain.  If I said "FpML" a lot of people here probably know thats
financial, but couldnt give me the namespace.  And within that domain,
you would get some funny looks if you chose that prefix to map to some
other namespace.

Ultimately though, if the "significant prefix" doesn't give you what
you need, continue to use XML.


>> to make it "hackable" by the masses, keeping mixed content and
>> attributes, the reason why you would use xml in the first place.
>
> Is it?

Yes.  Mixed content is the reason XML is used instead of things like JSON.


>> The need is there - is there a reason why this can't be done?
>
> Based on the above, I don't think you're going to build momentum.

The confusion or the stumbling block is that you think this is
intended to be XML 2.0, but its not at all.


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