- From: Eve L. Maler <eve.maler@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:26:04 -0400
- To: spec-prod@w3.org
I have to admit that I've fallen down on the job; I've been meaning to do a
comprehensive XMLspec update for at least a year now. I've collected a ton
of RFEs, and was thinking about doing a backwards-compatible minor update
(to V2.2) before considering any of the backwards-*in*compatible options
(which would require a V3.0).
At the same time, I've been feeling like XMLspec was already going in the
direction of being a "kitchen sink" DTD -- it's really hard to decide *not*
to add features, so it grows. A V2.2 might exacerbate the problem, so it's
probably a good time to re-examine our premises about what it should be.
Philippe brings up the idea of possibly merging DocBook and XMLspec. I
think this would be a very worthwhile discussion, even if the result is to
make them much more loosely coupled (e.g. an XMLspec hierarchy/metadata
module vs. a DocBook hierarchy/metadata module on top of a DocBook-like
information pool?).
In a separate message I'll send out my current list of XMLspec RFEs... I'm
pretty sure it's not complete, but it should cover about a year's worth of
requests.
Eve
At 11:43 PM 10/16/01 +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > Speaking of changing xmlspec, would it be a good occasion to sync the
> > existing variants with the original one?
>
>There are some outstanding additions that would be useful for the mathml
>spec as well (relating mainly to inline graphics, if I recall).
>If it would be useful I'll try to generate a list of things we added
>(this isn't entirely trivial as mathml is an extended version of xmlspec
>version 1 and most of the features got added in version 2 but not
>necessarily with the same syntax, but I'd like to get the sources back
>as far as possible to the current xmlspec, just in case we ever get the
>urge to do a mathml3.)
>
>David
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 10:25:51 UTC