Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Moving this on somewhat. Part II, Looking forward Background: From James blog. JC "Now you could actually quite easily take XML 1.0, ditch DTDs, add XML Namespaces, xml:id, xml:base and XML Infoset and end up with a reasonably short (although more than 10 pages), coherent spec. (I think Tim Bray even did a draft of something like this once.) But in 10 years the W3C and its membership has not cared enough about simplicity and coherence to take any action on this." Taking Tims baseline [1], does it meet the ideas of James proposal? There is a good overlap, though eight years old. It is based on XML 1.0 Second edition, would you update it to fifth edition (with simplicity in mind). What shortfalls are there? Where is it too document centric? Could it be simplified? A fair metric. Could this be explained as per http://markmail.org/message/nctnjvj4kaxtnkdb problem? * References I think this is Tims starter. [1]http://www.textuality.com/xml/xmlSW.html Sam Ruby collected some ideas [2]http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2007/01/26/XML-2-0 Are there any more? [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/ [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/ [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/ [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/ namespace rec -- regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
