• From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>
• Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:38:43 +0000

2009/11/16 Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Peter Hunsberger
> <peter.hunsberger@g...> wrote:
>
>> So what's the alternative?  There are lots of things that people
>> sometimes want to do, but not always.  Having optional standards that
>> cover these areas is probably a good thing;
>
> No, the alternative is to build them into the specs and require
> parsers to support them, but not require documents to use them. For
> example, consider attributes. You don't have to use them in XML, but
> if you do use them you know they're supported. xml:id, xml:base, and a
> few other things (though probably not XInclude) should be baked in,
> not bolted on. Watch this space. :-)

I thought we were headed towards a slimmer, lightweight, dtd-less
XML... not adding more?





-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>

• References:
  • Failed XML standards
    • From: Jesper Tverskov <jesper.tverskov@g...>
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>