Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Ok. That's two for syntax-only but with a different set of features. I don't know if expanding into the Schema debates is necessary although it is clear that we have been conflating these requirements by discussing expansion of the xml: vocabulary for things like ids. Will the SOAP folks be happy with a 'syntax-only' subset? len From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:Jeff.Lowery@c...] The XML I've used: 1. elements + attributes + data content [text nodes] 2. namespaces 3. internal entities 4. XML Schema 5. PIs Obviously, this is no one's subset. Of these, I would say 1 is essential, 2 is necessary. I don't like the namespace prefix mechanism, and I would probably support the radical solution of designating an official namespace prefix registry, so that the prefix is synonymous with the URI. You might be able to get rid of Namespace URI's in that case, or at least mandate that such URIs, if they exist, refer to a RDDL doc. I don't expect that to be a popular suggestion, though. 3 could be replaced by a non-DTD declarations. External entities can, also, though I don't use them myself (at least the DTD versions). Number 4 is definitely a layer on top, although a purely structural metalanguage (no types, just form) might be feasible for core. Something like a simplified DTD, but using element/attribute syntax. Even RELAX NG is too much, I think. PI mechanisms can be replaced by a targeted processing vocabulary in XML syntax. It could be useful if XML components could be designated as "skip parsing" (like CDATA), unless it's the target application. I'm not sure about that, though. I agree with Gavin about Infosets: NIMBY.
|
