Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
/ Mike Champion <mc@x...> was heard to say:
[...]
| So what if XML were "refactored" so that the bare-bones well-formed
| syntax (and/or data model, that's another issue!) were the common
| core, and DTD processing were at the next layer up? That would solve
| the J2ME issue, address the high-speed SOAP processing issue,
| standardize the "Common XML Core" that is the rock-solid basis of de
| facto interoperability, and so on.
Yes, I think if the decision is reached that a subset ("kernel" I
called it, stealing the word from Stuart who actually thought of it)
is the right answer, I think it would make editorial sense to refactor
the specs so that they layered as you propose.
But I wonder how rock-solid the basis actually is. That's the part
that bothers me. If you said "XML Kernel" is XML 1.1 w/o DTDs would
someone come along a week later and say they must have a subset that
doesn't have PIs in it? Or comments? Or attributes? Or #PCDATA? I dunno.
It seems unlikely, it seems like the task of parsing those things
isn't very onerous. But we said that about 1.0 with DTDs, didn't we?
Be seeing you,
norm
- --
Norman.Walsh@S... | Reason's last step is the recognition that
XML Standards Architect | there are an infinite number of things which
Web Tech. and Standards | are beyond it.--Pascal
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQE+X9NdOyltUcwYWjsRAgKjAJ9BIMfr4Dmy8lZChK4UPrQIOHGnUQCgoiWF
LX0ScDelrnCRY395gw2EgsM=
=lwxs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
