• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: Xml-Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:48:11 -0400

At 07:31 PM 8/2/00 -0600, Aaron Skonnard wrote:
>> At 04:27 PM 8/2/00 -0600, Aaron Skonnard wrote:
>> >Once XSD and XInclude are done, DTDs are dead weight for the Infoset.
>It's
>> >really about the fundamental abstractions that we can infer from XML 1.0
>+
>> >Namespaces in light of our current direction.
>>
>> Whose current direction?
>
>The direction of the W3C and the world of component/system developers wrt
>type information.

Really?  I'd love to see that formally stated by the W3C.

I suspect we have an honest difference of opinion between one group of
'component/system developers' and another.  XSD and XInclude aren't
universally adored, and neither are 'fundamental abstractions', I'm afraid.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - FinalReviewDraft)
    • From: Aaron Skonnard <aarons@d...>

• References:
  • RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - Final ReviewDraft)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - Final ReviewDraft)
    • From: Aaron Skonnard <aarons@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - Final ReviewDraft)
• Next by Date: RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML -FinalReviewDraft)
• Previous by thread: RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - Final ReviewDraft)
• Next by thread: RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - FinalReviewDraft)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread