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

RE: Clark's commentary

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:02:52 -0800
To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a901c197ad$e925ceb0$630ba8c0@beasys.com>
Here we get into the excellent discussion of what features are being used.
Sorry Norm, but your iotas don't quite match my iotas.  Which isn't
surprising though ;-)

My iotas are:

1) PI's should be removed as well.
2) Why not add XML Schema?  Or should that be in an xml post 2.0.  Or maybe
we have well-formed xml 2.0 and valid xml 2.0.
3) By dropping DTDs we lost modularity.  Whether modularity should be
addressed in an xml 2.0 is an interesting topic.  One possibility is that an
xml 2.0 could define a default processing model for inclusion.

A nice facet of xml (2.0 = 1.0 - DTDs - PIs + namespaces + infoset + xml
base) is that I think it more closely mimics standard practice, for example
SOAP 1.2.

This is an excellent example of architectural refactoring that often happens
in software.  SOAP 1.2 had to invent the equivalent of XML 2.0 for what it
needed.  Now it turns out that other people could use the same definitions.
So let's refactor the XML 2.0 stuff into a coherent piece, then SOAP WG
doesn't have to document it/maintain it.  And other specs can use it rather
than copying the verbage from soap 1.2.

Cheers,
Dave



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Tim Bray
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:33 AM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Clark's commentary
>
>
> 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 14:06:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:03 GMT