This is why JXTA's XML subset parser approach is wrong: after defining
the minimal infoset they want to work with (a fine thing) and specifying the
subset of XML that is meaningful given their infoset (another fine thing)
they then take the step of implementing a parser for than particular set
(a regretable step) and calling it XML (a bad step). Brand appropriation
is confusing, but putting the cart before the horse (e.g. subsetting the syntax
to suit a single infoset) goes against XML's basic approach.
Rick,
I agree on those points. It shouldn't be called XML at that point. I
personally
don't have an issue of subsetting XML for a specific purpose and even
writting an optimized parser for it. But at that time it should be a new entity.
It should clearly be documented that it isn't an XML parser.
There is precedence for this actually, XML is a subset of SGML. It has
optimized parsers for it. But it didn't keep the SGML name.
HTML for that matter is a language made using SGML. Yet it didn't use
a Full SGML parser for its designs. all HTML parsers I have seen are
specialized at handleing HTML. I believe it was even going to the
full SGML scope that XML even came into being.
So if the need warrents a subset of the standard for a spcialized need.
I don't have an issue, I do have an issue if it still calls it something that it
isn't.
Douglas
