Re: Call for unifying and clarifying XML 1.0, DOM, XPATH, and XML Infos
At 05:39 PM 1/28/00 -0600, Steven R. Newcomb wrote: [lots of stuff] I don't think I have anything to add to the arguments about whether the 10744 family of standards is being given its proper due. But there is one assertion here that ought to be addressed: >The W3C process appears to be based on the naive belief that >independent design assignments for all the various aspects of >Web-based information interchange can be made to a plethora of >independent technical committees, and, in the end, everything can be >made to work together somehow. Hmm. The W3C is well-supplied [some would say "infested"] with Co-ordination Groups which exist precisely to detect cases where different working groups need to do extra work to ensure consistency and interoperability between their output. A tremendous amount of time and effort goes into this work. The committees are *not* indepenent in theory or in practice. It's reasonable to argue over the quality of the results, but the "naive belief" that Steve describes simply doesn't exist. It is the case that there is no over-arching formal, architectural underpinning of the W3C's design for the future of the Web. TimBL has some living documents that he updates regularly, at http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ but they don't really have any normative force, and lots of people in the process disagree with parts of them. There has been some discussion of how such a formalization might be created, but nobody has to date proposed anything that's politically viable. So what we have is a partitioning of the design problem, allowing parallel work by multiple groups of people, with an added cost due to the need for co-ordination. The work in creating mammoth standards like 8879 and 10744 is more centralized and in my experience mostly done by a really tiny group of individuals who do all the heavy lifting. Arguably, you have to get better consistency end-to-end in the ISO system. Well, we're all spectators at ringside; nobody knows what the right way is to build the standards infrastructure for the largest experiment in information processing ever attempted; everyone is making it up as they go along. I'm certainly not going to defend the W3C model of work as the be-all and end-all or even go so far as to say that couldn't be improved quite a lot. But at this point in history it seems obvious that of the 3 models of work we have before us (ISO, IETF, W3C), none can be said to have been shown to be either triumphant or bankrupt, based on results. The most likely conclusion is that they excel in different problem domains. I'll end with a question. Steve asserts: > XML Schema *does not* address the problem of > validating mixed vocabularies. As far as I can tell, this > fundamental problem doesn't even appear on that committee's radar.) Is this true? I haven't been following schema that closely but I know the issue is for sure on their radar. I would agree with Steve that skipping this would be a pretty serious omission. -Tim 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/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 Unsubscribe by posting to majordom@i... the message unsubscribe xml-dev (or) unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email@your-subscribed-address Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.
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