Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I agree that less needs to be in the subset and it really needs to be a subset, not a wholesale restart on the core, but it represents a point of view and from people who took on the task before. It is worth looking at because it mirrors positions about what a core should be that will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Better sooner and better in public than in the W3C committees. I am reacting to the vociferous calls for a sanctioned subset that seem to promote fear of forking but that offer no clear alternative except a consistent dislike for DTDs, entities, and PIs. On another side, some dislike the xml: reserved names, namespaces, and the infoset. So what would a consensus look like? The first consensus needs to be that action is required at all because there is a third position that says, when in strong doubt, do nothing (the General Allenby approach). len From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...] On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:05 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > >I disagree. As I said at the start of the thread, XML-SW bundles > > namespaces, xml:space, xml:lang, xml:base and infoset, which I think is a > > mistake. > > Fair enough. I said it is a place to start. If all of the subset > supporters and detractors are arguing about the same document, then that is > a satisfactory way to begin. If they can't do that, there is little use in > beginning. I understand your desire, but I think it's best to start minimal and build up.
|
