Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 12:13 +0000, Pete Cordell wrote: > Taking ideas from various internet protocol negotiation schemes, can we > include a uxmldecl that includes a "require" attribute that lists features > the uXML parser must support. > > For example: > > <?uxml require="ns pi"?> As soon as you do that your spec no longer defines a single language, but 2^n languages, where n is the number of things you can write. It really hurts interoperability. Language negotiation lets the server choose the single preferred value. So you only need n variants, not 2^n You did go on to say, > > BTW - I think its important to agree that we are only looking for 3 or 4 > widely implemented features, rather than 3 or 4 million! If we have too > many then we lose interoperability. Things analogous to XML namespaces and > xml:id that were added to XML after the initial release of XML are the sorts > of things we should be looking for. so, so far you've listed 3, and I can easily see a dozen more happening. comments lax error handling processing instructions namespaces, namespace path, external namespace definition files xml:base xml:id xinclude microschema, microentitydefinitions... :) mixed content and xml:space and so on and so forth Better to say, either use microxml or xml. XML succeeded largely because of the XML Promise -- every XML processor is licensed by the XML Specification to process any XML document. I *do* think there would be mileage in a hook for later extensions, e.g. reserving <µxml>... Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
