RE: Is XML 1.0 underspecified? (was: Re: CDATA by any other name.

Reynolds, Gregg (greynolds@datalogics.com)
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:41:29 -0600

I would agree we shouldn't be too harsh on the standard as written; the
W3C intentionally does things fast, which is good on the whole, but it
means pragmatism wins out over aesthetics sometimes. But I also agree
using Z would be a very big step forward.

-----Original Message-----
From: david@megginson.com [mailto:david@megginson.com]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 12:58 PM
To: XML Dev
Subject: Is XML 1.0 underspecified? (was: Re: CDATA by any other
name...)

Michael Kay writes:

> This whole thread just reconfirms my view, stated a couple of weeks
> ago, that the current spec is hopelessly informal and we need some
> PhD student to sit down and produce a version in Z or something
> similar.

That's probably too harsh. I am actually quite fond of the XML 1.0
REC, and believe that it has worked for the most part.