|
Liam,
> > [...] If the world was to increment the XML spec > Unlikely, I'm afraid... This could lead us to have XML, and XML++ one is a superset of the other and they are both lexically compatible. This is essentially what we have at the moment in the OID implementation. This is all a matter of view. Isn't it strange that we can call this OID concept 'a protocol' or 'a parser' and it's all a matter of concept perception? Strangely, it cant be put in a box with a clear label on it like other technology. This is one way to avoid the politics that that would be involved with an "XML 2.0". This also would relieve the perceived burden that every XML 1.1 tool must race to support XML 2.0 or suffer the fate of being outdated by another implementation that did support XML 2.0. Not everybody needs XML with OID's - but those of us who know - know how the band wagon rolls and nobody want to be left behind stuck on old version numbers. > > > it would seem logical that attribute order would be preserved > > There's a theoretical reason not to - they're properties of the element, > logically. Appendix F of the ISO SGML standard compared attributes to > command parameters. This is strange because normally "command parameters" are order dependent (stdcall vs. pascal). Software to me is like a painting, you can add detail or functionality into an existing painting and make it a more intricate piece of art. Why should anyone say "This painting cant be made any more beautiful" True Artists paint over signs that forbid painting. This is just my thought on the canvas for what its worth. Brian |