Feeling good about SML

[Leigh Dodds]

> To this end, I think we should now move to discussion on how we might
> proceed.  One suggestion I have is that we should keep this discussion
> within XML-DEV as long as possible.  The reason is that the amount
> of readily available expertise in XML-DEV is simply staggering and I
> believe we will benefit from it as we progress.

I'd say that looking to specify what features of the XML spec a 
schema uses would be the best place to start. As has already been 
pointed out, this can be a separate body of work and not 
require an amendment to the standard itself.

An XML parser then must still support the XML 1.0 spec. It 
may also optionally support this additional layer. An SML 
processor must support the additional layer at least, and 
as much of the XML 1.0 spec as it needs as it can hide 
behind this layer.

Being able to define a feature subset is going to be a requirement 
in the long-run anyway - because SML and XML will have to 
inter-operate. SML->XML processor is trivial. XML->SML processor 
is not. So the SML processor needs programmatic access to 
a definition of the feature subset in use to properly validate/handle
the XML document/fragment.

Once that is in place, you can 'hide' behind it to an 
extent and start stripping stuff from your parser, if 
necessary, because you can define your message format schema 
to only use those features you want.

That any use as a starter for 10?

L. 

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe 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)