• From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
• To: David Lee <dlee@c...>
• Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:05:05 +0000

On 7 December 2010 14:42, David Lee <dlee@c...> wrote:
> I'd even argue for a minimum *without attributes* and without mixed content,
> no DTD subset, no namespaces, and only UTF8 support.

I've had to deal with "element only" xml and it's not that pleasant...
instead of the usual:

<item type="foo">value<item>

you have the verbose:

<item>
  <type>foo</type>
  <value>value</value>
</item>

and your xpaths go from:

item[@type = 'foo']

to

item[type = 'foo']/value

...so not great.

I agree with no DTDs, no namespaces, UTF-8 only etc... mixed content
has to stay otherwise you may as well not call it xml.


-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>

• References:
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: <vojtech.toman@e...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@g...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Cecil New <cecil.new@g...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: <vojtech.toman@e...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>