Feeling good about SML

[Gavin Thomas Nicol]

> 1) Tie down what the bifurcation areas that cause XML
> interoperability problems and allow people to throw
> the phrase "XML parser" around with wild abandon.
> e.g. external subset processing, external entity references,
> Unicode encoding(s) supported, location information, etc. etc.
> 
> For arguments sake, lets call this the XML Feature Manifest
> (XMF).
> 
> 2) Tie down a syntax -- presumably canonical XML -- to
> store XFM.
> 
> 3) XML parser writers would be encouraged to provide
> an XFM so that humans and programs alike can determine
> what the parser does and does not support.
> 
> 4) XML Document Creators would be encouraged to
> tack an XFM onto their document collections so
> that humans and programs alike can determine
> what XML features the document-set requires.

This seems like an excellent suggestion...  much better than
inventing another language, and besides, the XFM would be
great input into the SML analysis process.

Personally, I cannot see the value of SML... though I 
understand where people are coming from regarding it. 
If people *really* want another format for high-performance
situations, I'm not even convinced that the XML-ish syntax
is ideal. It seems to me that maybe people are trying to
ride on the XML hype...


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)