Conformance in XML processors

[David Megginson]

Paul Prescod writes:

 > There is a third way to read the situation: the optionality of the
 > features works to reassure people that XML processing is simple, but the
 > usefulness of them will encourage users to request them. (idea: one easy
 > way to encourage vendors to implement them is to depend upon them in
 > XLL) For instance XLL depends on ID/IDREF.

This doesn't really address the point, though.  If notations and data
attributes are optional, then either support for embedding non-XML
objects is also optional, or notations and data attributes are not the
preferred way of embedding non-XML objects.  If they are not the
preferred way (you probably rightly suggest that embedded URLs and
MIME/HTTP will be more popular), then why does the spec include them
at all, and cause so much unnecessary confusion among non-SGML people?


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 ak117 at freenet.carleton.ca
Microstar Software Ltd.         dmeggins at microstar.com
      http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)