RE: SOAP's prohibiting use of XML internal subset

True and not an entirely shameless plug.  

I read the SW and that is why I commented 
earlier that this thread would come back to the 
question of what should be in the core.  It feels 
like spilt milk at this point and I'm not a believer 
in namespaces in the core, so yes, there will be 
consensus issues.   I would think it easier 
to declare proper subsets (where SW or SW- is 
a really good candidate for one of these), and 
to enable profiles such that subsets can be 
combined and named as needed.  Wouldn't that 
be easier than a version change (no immediate 
references would have to change).  Still, it 
is a W3C spec and the SW is a proper subset 
were it not the case that namespaces are not 
in XML 1.0.  Argggghh... the aggravation of 
maintaining consistent myths for evolving entities.

I brought this up only because X3D had the issue 
of some thinking profiles are only subsets and 
the ISO rep having to bring up the issue that 
subsets can be combined.  So what a profile is 
and what a subset is should be made clear at jump 
to avoid some noise later on.


From: Tim Bray []

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

      - DTDs (& hence entities)
   + Infoset
  + xml:base

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 17:52:39 UTC