Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> 1) Tie down what the bifurcation areas that cause XML > interoperability problems and allow people to throw > the phrase "XML parser" around with wild abandon. > e.g. external subset processing, external entity references, > Unicode encoding(s) supported, location information, etc. etc. > > For arguments sake, lets call this the XML Feature Manifest > (XMF). > > 2) Tie down a syntax -- presumably canonical XML -- to > store XFM. > > 3) XML parser writers would be encouraged to provide > an XFM so that humans and programs alike can determine > what the parser does and does not support. > > 4) XML Document Creators would be encouraged to > tack an XFM onto their document collections so > that humans and programs alike can determine > what XML features the document-set requires. This seems like an excellent suggestion... much better than inventing another language, and besides, the XFM would be great input into the SML analysis process. Personally, I cannot see the value of SML... though I understand where people are coming from regarding it. If people *really* want another format for high-performance situations, I'm not even convinced that the XML-ish syntax is ideal. It seems to me that maybe people are trying to ride on the XML hype... xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
