- From: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 16:31:41 -0800
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
[Murray Altheim:] | BTW, on talking with Bill Smith about the variance in needs between people | like Tim and Eliot's needs, what's the likelihood of defining conformance | levels for XML? This would allow a lightwight app to have, for example: | | XML-CORE: Level 1 (core of XML) | XML-LINK: Level 1 (basic linking ala HTML) | XML-STYLE: Level 0 (no stylesheets) [etc.] One of the most basic design principles for this whole effort has been: Thou Shalt Have No Optional Features. We're implicitly allowing for very large-scale optionality by dividing the spec into three parts (xml-lang, xml-link, and xml-style), because it's obvious that there will be database exchange applications that only need xml-lang, for example, and Java-based approaches like CML that will use xml-lang and xml-link but not xml-style. I would powerfully resist any effort to get more granular than that. The lack of options in XML is one of the very best things about it. Jon
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 1997 19:31:44 UTC