Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Understood and while I like to have choices, I am watching one fairly important language effort derail because early in the development cycle, they chose to specify multiple bindings without really separating the syntax away from the abstract property definitions. Multiple encodings are madness without that. As a result, it is unlikely they will be able to write a spec to govern all of the quickly emerging and competitive language variants. XML is no help here; it is a competitor which divides some and rallies other, but ultimately, as the Grovesters discovered, markup is inadequate for for standardization of systems if adequate for specifications of syntax-centric vocabularies. And so, of course, the prose is normative and the choice of means open to interpretation, thus, interoperability is elusive. Linda's question could be answered with a laundry list, and perhaps that is what she wants. I'd say that on top of that list, DOM support is item number 1. What do you think of this article? http://www.scottandrew.com/index.php/articles/dom_doit Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...] The features all XML systems (i.e. processors) *must* support is very restrictive, and doesn't at present even include GIs or element nesting. *Should* support, well, who knows? That's why the Infoset doesn't pretend to be normative; it's a library of names of features thought to be generally useful.
|
