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

["Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>]

I've just read Tim's document, and generally IMO it looks great.

Getting rid of the internal DTD is great.  Compared to the rest of XML, 
that's a lot of pain for not much gain; particularly for novice users.

I would remove some of the odd rules about what is a valid comment, allowing 
'--' in them and to end with multiple '-' characters.  i.e.
<!---------------------------------------->
should be a valid comment.

I would also scrap CDATA sections.  In many respects they just allow people 
to be lazy, and they look like they're solving a problem (not having to 
escape data), when in fact they just cause a different problem.

I wonder whether XInclude should be part of the base spec?

Maybe Tim or some other XML 'elder' should get the xmllite.org domain name, 
put up a spec, and see how much traction it gets.  If it gets any take up it 
could be pushed back into the W3C.

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
Interface XML to C++ the easy way using C++ XML
data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com
for more info

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Pawson" <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web



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

_______________________________________________________________________

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