RE: SOAP's prohibiting use of XML internal subset

What exactly is being discussed here? That there should be a mechanism
for subsetting XML technologies (which sounds practically untenable) or
that there should be "officially blessed" subsets of XML technologies
(which is a one size fits all solution which won't satisfy everyone). 

Let sleeping dogs lie, unless they snore.                    

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bray [] 
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 2:19 PM
> To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
> Cc:
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> > It may be good to start out by separating the notions of subset (a 
> > proper subset of U{XML}) and profile (a cross-product of subsets of 
> > U{XML}).
> Hey, my stake is on the ground on this one: check out 
> - the right answer is
>       XML1.1
>       - DTDs (& hence entities)
> +namespaces
>    + Infoset
>   + xml:base
>   ==========
>       XML-SW
> Which *nobody* will need to subset and *anybody* can build on 
> (with the sole exception of the MathML people, who are stuck 
> with XML 1.* forever because they want names for all their 
> special characters).
> However, it may be the case that not everyone will 
> immediately say "hey you got it right Tim, argument over."  
> Hard though it may be to believe, people may disagree about 
> what should go in XML-NG. -Tim

Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 17:26:33 UTC