- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:55:53 -0600
- To: "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, www-tag@w3.org
Risky either way, but the least risk seems to be not to subset given that is the risk we are all accepting today. I'm not sure that people who won't figure out either language that says "ignore PIs" or how to do that will be happy without getting their precise subset. Years and years of practice proved people weren't happy without a subset of SGML (so XML), and every day we get yet another "What are these attribute things doing in this tree?" question. So I'm not convinced the tide is ever really stemmed. The processor code will fork. That's a dllHell issue. Let the buyer beware. The SOAP folks have yet to present a compelling argument for the subset as an officially sanctioned subset. It seems like extra work for the W3C given the application documentation already prescribes which features should be used. I am more compelled by the problems of IDs and well-formed documents because that is a case, according to the advocates, one sees often and is a side effect of XML 1.0/1.1 relying on well-formedness and for which, the only solution now provided (process the DTD or schema) is said to be wholely unacceptable (we have no numbers to support that but...). So that one jumps out as a problem in XML itself, not in the application semantics. len From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM] If there's an official subset that's "small enough", I think they might reach the conclusion that "it's not an ideal subset for us, but it's close enough, let's use that" and avoid forking endlessly. I don't see *any* evidence that SOAP is going to fail to reach PR because it doesn't support doctype declarations or PIs. And so the forking *will* occur. I'd like to stem the tide before it overflows all the barricades.
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 10:56:25 UTC