norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2008/02/20/xml20 http://norman.walsh.name/2008/02/20/xml20/comments.atom 2008-02-20T22:25:12Z Comment 1 on /2008/02/20/xml20 http://norman.walsh.name/2008/02/20/xml20#comment0001 2008-02-20T16:46:44Z 2008-02-20T16:46:44Z Steven 1a8761b364c2754b5e41c40ad8421a242b000d6b

9. XML 2.0 shall do away with insignificant whitespace (in content). Pretty-printing by putting the insignificant whitespace inside the tags and having all element content whitespace be significant would be nicer than having to rely on dtd or xml:space.

Maybe pushing it too far? Or is this just something that most people don't care about?

 Comment 2 on /2008/02/20/xml20 http://norman.walsh.name/2008/02/20/xml20#comment0002 2008-02-20T18:35:37Z 2008-02-20T18:35:37Z Mark 3e23810e2a1eb234309d3996a91062107c7837f1

1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 : yes

4, 5, 8: maybe

7: hmm, this would be considerable barrier to adoption, especially if mixing of text and qnames is allowed in the attributes

 Comment 3 on /2008/02/20/xml20 http://norman.walsh.name/2008/02/20/xml20#comment0003 2008-02-20T19:06:04Z 2008-02-20T19:06:04Z dret cdee7ba2e53e5c97d302fe5e107715e9d271f6d5 http://dret.net/netdret/

Doesn't (3) conflict with (1)?

DTDs should definitely be evicted from XML.

XML should embrace the Infoset, it should be a syntax for trees rather than a syntax that implicitly happens to only allow trees. (This would make it much less painful to explain to people that in reality 95% of the XML technologies out there are in fact are Infoset technologies. IPath. ISLT. IQuery. SAI. AJAI.)

maybe add XML Base and XInclude, which could be optional, but at least would deserve better support than they have today.

 Comment 4 on /2008/02/20/xml20 http://norman.walsh.name/2008/02/20/xml20#comment0004 2008-02-20T19:22:26Z 2008-02-20T19:22:26Z Norman Walsh 9f5c771a25733700b2f96af4f8e6f35c9b0ad327 http://norman.walsh.name/

Good catch, I guess 3 does conflict with 1, just a bit. I'm willing to reject both DTDs and documents that have names with colons in them that aren't conformant to Namespaces in XML.

 Comment 5 on /2008/02/20/xml20 http://norman.walsh.name/2008/02/20/xml20#comment0005 2008-02-20T19:50:57Z 2008-02-20T19:50:57Z Paul Brown eebdd667893d68d655789b6d1a6285c6f4e10de8 http://mult.ifario.us

Unfortunately, I think that XML 1.0 has already done its damage, so I'm not sure what purpose XML 2.0 would serve. Or, to put it metaphorically, after having drunk a bottle of XML 1.0 and awakened groggy in a dumpster with a few days of beard growth and no wallet, I'm not that eager to see how XML 2.0 tastes...

If anything is to be done other than to move on, less may be more, e.g., going back to the namespaces spec and removing any and all ambiguities.

 Comment 6 on /2008/02/20/xml20 http://norman.walsh.name/2008/02/20/xml20#comment0006 2008-02-20T22:25:11Z 2008-02-20T22:25:11Z John Cowan 02e728ba6f922a41e37329c3a52b7fa0a787765f http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

See XML Skunk Works for a good base document for this effort. It is XML - DTD + XML Base + XML Infoset + XML Namespaces, and only 41 pages long (vs. 47 pages for XML 1.0). Removing the 4th edition naming rules would probably save another page or two. So that's all good. We could also yank attribute normalization, which Tim has admitted was a mistake. Adding prefix undeclaration and CURIEs would be cheap.

What else would we want? I'd like to see elements within start-tags, where <a href="foo"> is just shorthand for <a <href>foo</href>>, where the href sub-element can contain perfectly general XML. That would require some extensions to SAX, to be sure.