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 13:34:24 -0800
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020107132927.022eb090@pop.intergate.ca>
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 GMT

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