SML - a vote against

Gavin Thomas Nicol gtn at
Tue Nov 30 21:50:53 GMT 1999

> Instead, what I'd like to see is the codification of subsets and
> recommendations for domains of use of these subsets.  For
> example, in the domain of XML for business messaging, if not for all of
> XML-for-data, I'd like to see a formal recommendation to avoid both entity
> declarations and mixed content.

This is, again, precisely the thing I was arguing for in a (much)
earlier post. Forget the syntax. Define the application and domain
specific set of features (application conventions), and be done
with it. It's much easier to get people in the same to domain to
agree to the subset than the public in general.

Again, if a product that claims "supports XML-for-data" generates
data that doesn't conform, interoperability *in that domain*
suffers, so that isn't likely to happen. For conforming messages, it
should be impossible to tell whether there is an XML or an
"XML-for-data" parser under the covers. You get the best of both

This is very much like the debates we had for I18N in HTML. In the
end, the canonical model is that everything is ISO 10646. In reality,
application/geographic uses constrain content to particular

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list