Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I think Simon is taking a conservative view of what XML is, and that is why one repeats the question from time to time, what is Core. Some say XML 1.0, others say XML 1.0 plus namespaces, some say XML 1.0 plus (name a subset of all the specs written for processing XML in one context or another). It is clear that this decision is not the same for all processing contexts and that as a result one would properly avoid levying constraints on XML 1.n that would limit its use in some contexts, or increasing without justification and consensus, the cost of applying it in some contexts. There is no way out of this dilemma that will satisfy every conceivable application of or implementor of XML systems and it will be a headache for the XML specification authors for the rest of XML's lifecycle. That is the price of being the ring bearer (nightsweats). So name the profile (heck, URI it and be consistent). len -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@d...] Simon St. Laurent wrote: > Perhaps. At this point, I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that > any effort to apply strong typing to markup is in fact "a whole new > class of XML processing apps" - and one that shouldn't be confused > with XML. I think that you are saying that XML, as defined by the current XML specifications, should not be confused with XML. I find that confusing.
|
