Re: [xml-dev] RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web

[Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>]

Moving this on somewhat.

Part II, Looking forward


Background:
From James blog. 
JC "Now you could actually quite easily take XML 1.0, ditch DTDs, add
XML Namespaces, xml:id, xml:base and XML Infoset and end up with a
reasonably short (although more than 10 pages), coherent spec. (I think
Tim Bray even did a draft of something like this once.) But in 10 years
the W3C and its membership has not cared enough about simplicity and
coherence to take any action on this."



Taking Tims baseline [1], does it meet the ideas of James proposal?
There is a good overlap, though eight years old. It is based on XML 1.0
Second edition, would you update it to fifth edition (with simplicity
in mind).

What shortfalls are there? Where is it too document centric? Could it
be simplified? 

A fair metric. Could this be explained as per
http://markmail.org/message/nctnjvj4kaxtnkdb problem?





* References

I think this is Tims starter.
[1]http://www.textuality.com/xml/xmlSW.html
Sam Ruby collected some ideas
[2]http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2007/01/26/XML-2-0
Are there any more?
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/  
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/   namespace rec






-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk