Re: [xml-dev] XML 2 so far

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

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 20:42:50 -0500
Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:

> Here are my notes on feature requests so far for an XML 2.0.

> 
> (1) allow leading whitespace before the XML declaration
>     <?xml ...?>
> (2) character set
>     require the use of utf-8, or of utf-8 and -16, and forbid others.
>     Not complete consensus here.

Political views as well as some technical. 

> 
> (3) document type declaration - external DTD
>     Remove external DTDs.


Clear majority though? Option of deprecating. 
>     Not complete consensus on what to do with entities.
     Multiple requests for some set of entities. 

> 
> (4) internal subset (e.g. element and entities declared in DTD-style
>     notation at the start of a document)
>     I don't see consensus here. 
> 
> (5) multiple root elements
>     Allow multiple root elements in a document.
>     Why? Because people want it. There's no technical need.

A small number of real examples given. 

> 
> (6) Lax syntax and error recovery
>     There's strong demand to allow processors to do error recovery,
>     from some user communities.  

>     (and it's certainly not a feature of JavaScript or JSON either).
>     Not clear consensus here.

     Not seen on this thread Liam? Unless you mix it with your 7?
     Keep separate? 
> 
> (7) Minimization
>     This overlaps with No. 6, lax syntax.  Many people want to use
>     a terser syntax, or have it as an option.  There is not (yet)
>     strong consensus on what that should be. 
I'd sum that as clear desire, syntax to be agreed?

> 
> (8) Attributes
>     Allowing multiple attributes with the same name,

One request only. 
>     or allowing
>     markup inside attribute values, or allowing an equivalence
>     between
>       <e a="v"... and <e><a>v</a>...
>     in some way, have been requested, but not any agreement on the
>     details. 
Again a minority view as expressed on this thread. 

> (9) comments
>     discussion on <xml:comment>...</xml:comment> with no real
>     agreement emerging. 

Majority disagreement IMHO. 


> (10) graphs vs documents
>     A long thread on this, with nothing clear emerging (I think).
> 
> 
> What did I miss?
> 
From my notes:


Namespaces. Clear desire to simplify, MK suggestion gained most support.

-- within comments.  Nested comments. Alternate syntax for comments.

Backwards/forwards compatibility? Any XML1 should be XML 2 and vice
versa.  Small majority favoured a tranform to get from SXML to XML 1.0.
Related, "don't break the existing toolchain" Many expressed a
preference for a real break, with many new features. Features classified
as breaking|non-breaking

Graph rather than tree. Minority view.

Clear requirement for entities "in some form" macros might be a clearer
description? Not necessarily as part of an internal DTD.

More lax whitespace treatment. Minority but supported. Or choice on
white space treatment

Vague, but clear message that simplicity is a real requirement. 

Links. Vague but supported call for better linking.


Even more vague. Learning lessons from JSON. Simplicity without loss
of XML essential features. Data typing as a benefit ( supported feature)


-- 

regards 

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