• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: SML: Second Try
• From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>
• Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 23:05:41 +0100
• Cc: 'Xml-Dev' <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <p04330102ba680795618b@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <4827EC373E03DB44AC2AB3900430896B0265A7@w...> <p04330102ba680795618b@[192.168.254.4]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> 3rd Option: Do nothing. Leave XML as it is. It works. It's proven. It's 
> not perfect, but it's damn good, and hits a really nice middle point 
> between the needs of many different communities. Don't trim it. Don't 
> create alternate syntaxes. Just use it.

The current set of XML standards is good, but it could still
use a bit more modularity and consistency. Whether you call it
XML 2.0 or FubarML doesn't really matter, however, something
will evolve where "canonical" *is* actually canonical, and
where the transformation processor spec isn't authoritative
for serialization, where validating isn't an integral part
of parsing and where "default values" won't get in the way
of in-memory representations.

J.Pietschmann

• References:
  • RE: SML: Second Try
    • From: Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>
  • RE: SML: Second Try
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Urgent !!
• Next by Date: Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Previous by thread: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Next by thread: RE: SML: Second Try
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread