- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:40:14 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
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: http://simonstl.com/articles/cxmlspec.txt 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 activity. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:39:56 UTC