- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 13:34:24 -0800
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
At 11:02 AM 07/01/02 -0800, David Orchard wrote: >1) PI's should be removed as well. I question whether it's worth the pain of taking out. They don't add much in the way of complexity, and I've often found it handy to use them as sort of an application-specific bookmark in markup that other apps will ignore. >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. Completely totally out of the question. A high proportion of XML use cases involve no schema at all, or DTDs, and I suspect that the schema alternatives will take and hold some of the schema territory. >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. I agree, although I think SOAP went seriously out of bounds in building its own nonstandard subset of XML. -Tim
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 16:34:53 UTC