W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Clark's commentary

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 09:33:14 -0800
Message-ID: <3C39DBDA.3040909@textuality.com>
CC: www-tag@w3.org
Chris Lilley wrote:

> On Monday, January 07, 2002, 4:25:53 PM, Norm wrote:
> NW> Probably. I think I'd (personally) be in favor of an XML 2.0 if *and
> NW> only if* there was agreement beforehand that XML 2.0 would be XML 1.0
> NW> + Namespaces + the Infoset + XML Base. (And not one iota more or less;
> NW> no other changes. None. Not one.)
> If you had added "a solution to the ID problem" in there I would have
> been right behind that suggestion.

No, I think Norm got it right.  ID is different from the rest of the
list in that for the others, we have working solutions with a
consensus behind them.  An XML 2.0 can be successful to the extent
that it merely aggregates and blesses the things that are here and
known to work.  Any attempt to address unsolved problems is fatal.

I think XML 2.0 would be worth doing even if you left out XML Base.

James also specifically suggested simply leaving all of the DTD
machinery.  The degree to which this would simplify the specification
work is almost beyond belief.  I think I could sit down and write
an XML 2.0 draft (1.0 - DTDs + namespaces + infoset) in about 3
days elapsed.  -Tim
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 12:29:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:29 UTC