Pete Cordell wrote:
> ----- Original Message From: "Eric van der Vlist"
>
>> When people say "XML is hard", they usually do not mean "XML 1.0 is
>> hard" but "XML 1.0 + namespaces in XML + XPath + DOM + XSLT + W3C XML
>> Schema + XML Base + xml:id + XInclude + XPointer + ... is hard" and the
>> proportion of criticism that goes to XML 1.0 itself is usually pretty
>> low. In other words, I don't think that subsetting only XML 1.0 (or even
>> only XML 1.0 + namespaces) would be very useful.
>
> So I'm wondering, what do others think of as XML when Simon says
> "...creating a subset of XML..."?
Interesting question - I think it depends what suits me ;-).
When Simon says JSON is good enough most of the time I think how
unlikely I would be to give up XPath, XQuery and XSLT.
When Simon talks about subsetting XML I think about ditching DTDs and
bringing some sanity to namespaces.
A lot of the other technologies don't cause me pain because I don't use
them and I rarely have to support customers who use them.
John
--
John Snelson, Oracle Corporation http://snelson.org.uk/john
Berkeley DB XML: http://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/xml
XQilla: http://xqilla.sourceforge.net
