It starts to be a problem when one has to 
move bare XML around and the framework is 
overzealously stuffing declarations into 
the syntax.  Some users of XML should be 
SGML users instead.  One case is network 
messaging that interfaces to RF systems 
where size matters a lot (RF is comparable 
to 9600-14.4 systems).  Sometimes it is 
simply a matter of getting them to understand 
what XSLT is doing to "help" and why copy-of 
is a bad idea for their particular code even 
if it looks like tight code.  Until they 
really understand what the infoset is for 
XSLT, they stumble.

Otherwise, from my perspective, the XML-SW 
is a very sensible place to start.

len


From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@[...].com]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

>  Question:  how many of you participating in this
>  thread have read Tim Bray's XML-SW paper at
>  textuality.com?
> 
>  http://www.textuality.com/xml/xmlSW.html
> 
>  Perhaps we should, for a strawman's sake, put
>  that one proposal on the table here on XML-Dev
>  and debate its merits vis a vis our different
>  applications.


We could do that.

As for me, I'll stay out of the debate, since
I don't think there's anything worth discussing:
XML-SW is right on the mark.

>  My objection to it was including namespaces
>  in THE core.  If it is not the core, nevermind;
>  it is a good place to start on a subset.

My feeling is, as long as we're stuck with XML Namespaces
to begin with, XML-SW is as good a place as any to put them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>