SML - a vote against
Here's my take on the SML debate... XML has been designed to be flexible enough to cover a wide range of application domains, and to be broadly compatible with some existing practice in this arena. In reaching this design, compromises had to be reached between simplicity and this flexibility and compatibility. We probably all have quibbles about the wisdom of some of the compromises reached; but on the whole, I suggest that a good balance has been reached between addressing the needs of a broad range of applications, and keeping the standard simple enough to be managable. There will certainly be many applications for which this full flexibility is not required; and similarly many applications where compatibility is not an issue. The question is whether, for these applications, the penalties of using XML as it stands are large enough to warrant not using it. The benefit of a single standard is that we will all profit from a rapid proliferation and deployment of tools which operate on information conforming to this standard. Every division in the standard dilutes this benefit. The disadvantage is that applications have to carry the implementation costs of features which they do not use. In the end, I think this is a case where be benefits of a single standard comfortably outweigh the costs. Let's stick with the one we've got. -- Cheers, John xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format