- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 15:57:24 -0800
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Paul Grosso wrote: > > I am not sure what I think (though I'm generally skeptical > about the need to do anything here). But let me raise > some of the arguments already raised the last time the > XML Core WG discussed this. Good stuff, thanks Paul. > 1. Arguments about making XML easier to implement are > not effective. This seems correct, and would not in itself be a reason to do this. Although being able to reduce the size/complexity of XML processors is unambiguously a good thing. > 2. As far as user requirements, it is hard to see how removing > capabilities from XML can benefit users. Users use what they > use, and they might be negatively impacted if you remove some > feature, but how can they be positively impacted by removal > of features? Users of SOAP would benefit because as XML 1.0 is specified they are open to a severe and hard-to-resist denial-of-service attack via the old billion-laughs scam. In fact this benefit extends to anyone who wants to provide a high-performance wire protocol using XML. > 3. As far as adding features, the (only somewhat facetious) > argument goes like this: > a. Any attempt to develop an XML 2.0 will realistically > take at least two years from start to Rec, and that > only if you select only the most crucially needed > features to add (and that doesn't include getting > wide and interoperable implementor support). > b. Any feature that can wait two+ years can't be needed so > badly as to be crucial enough to consider it as a possible > addition to XML 2.0. I think those are excellent arguments and not facetious at all. So my personal proposal (*not* speaking for the TAG) is that this project be strictly forbidden from adding any new features whatsoever - one is too many - beyond those that are in XML 1.1, namespaces 1.1, the infoset, and (maybe) xml:base, and strongly encouraged to remove some, in particular DTDs. In response to the problem observed by the XMLP people, there are really only three possible responses: 1. You can't legally subset XML so what you're doing isn't XML and we're not going to help you 2. We're going to give you a mechanism for subsetting XML 3. We're going to do a new rev of XML that you won't need to subset. > The last time the WG discussed this, we were very far from > consensus on what to do or even if we should do anything. Up until very recently I would have been one of those counselling inaction. > Therefore, before spending major time and effort to develop XML 2.0, > it would be important to get a firm statement from the AC that > we should invest this effort and what the desired scope/direction > should be. s/major/any/, and no kidding. -Tim
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 18:57:27 UTC