subsetting XML (was Re: [Minutes] 2 Dec 2002)

Tim Bray writes:
>For these reasons I think subsetting out the DTD is long past due.  I 
>think that "basic XML-in-practice" de facto includes namespaces, 
>xml:base, and the infoset.  Thus XML-SW.  Note that all XML-SW docs are 
>conforming XML 1.*, and that transforming XML 1.* processors to XML-SW 
>processors would in every case involve substantial reduction and 
>simplification, and no new code.

Funny, I remember when this was controversial:

But at least it doesn't include xml:base, the one piece of XML-SW whose
inclusion I just don't understand. 

>*If* we could think of a way to deal with the process issues I think
>there is low-hanging fruit here for the Core WG to grasp.  Obviously
>what everyone worries about is 138 people piling into the Working
>Group, each with just one little feature they want added.  A
>carefully-chosen set of ground rules could maybe work around this, but
>creativity and dedication would be required.  -Tim

A lot of people would support the principle I think, but many of those
are the same people who have despaired of the various XML activities
recent trend toward creating ever more-complex specs.  I like the
general idea, but can't find the faith it would take to support such

Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down! --

Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:39:56 UTC