• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>
• To: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:31:17 -0500

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Peter Hunsberger
<peter.hunsberger@g...> wrote:

> However, optional but part of the base spec, vs. optional and part of
> a different spec really makes no difference as far as I can tell,
> other than to make the base spec larger and harder to get agreement
> on?

That's why you don't want anything in the base spec to be optional.
The problem is not so much base spec or supplementary spec, but
optional vs. required. No additions to XML post-namespaces (xml:base,
xml:id, schemas, infoset, XML 1.1, XInclude, etc.) have achieved
ubiquity and reliable support. People have built solid apps on top of
XML (XPath, XSLT, XQuery, XHTML, Atom, etc.) but the core of XML has
been extremely resistant to evolution.

-- 
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...>
  • Re: Failed XML standards
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>