Re: XML Conformance Levels [Was: ERB Decisions of March 26th]

[Murray Altheim:]

| BTW, on talking with Bill Smith about the variance in needs between people
| like Tim and Eliot's needs, what's the likelihood of defining conformance
| levels for XML? This would allow a lightwight app to have, for example:
|    XML-CORE:  Level 1 (core of XML)
|    XML-LINK:  Level 1 (basic linking ala HTML)
|    XML-STYLE: Level 0 (no stylesheets)

One of the most basic design principles for this whole effort has
been: Thou Shalt Have No Optional Features.  We're implicitly allowing
for very large-scale optionality by dividing the spec into three parts
(xml-lang, xml-link, and xml-style), because it's obvious that there
will be database exchange applications that only need xml-lang, for
example, and Java-based approaches like CML that will use xml-lang and
xml-link but not xml-style.  I would powerfully resist any effort to
get more granular than that.  The lack of options in XML is one of the
very best things about it.