Re: Has XML run its course?
XML has certainly run its course as a unitary body of practice, which I believe is Simon's fundamental point. Nowhere in the ten original principles was the long term preservation of interoperability elevated to an explicit goal. The assumption appears to have been that the rulemaking (or 'recommendation' development) authority of the W3C would provide a method of extension to the original XML specification, while ensuring the moral suasion to hold the consensus of a professional community for an ever-expanding body of practice. Yet the significant innovation of XML 1.0 was, first, simple well-formedness--as divorced from validity on terms of a priori expectations--and, second, the explicit recognition of WF's corollary: that for many cases well-formedness is the only reasonable syntactic prerequisite to processing. It was the revelation found in simple well-formedness which first attracted many of us to XML and which, in the face of the W3C's exercise of authority to expand dogma, afforded the sufficient basis for our protestant faith in the original syntactic specification. The W3C is in the unenviable situation of extending XML by generalization to encompass every special interest which can demand its attention, while the alternative is perfecting tools through particularization and speciation using the relatively simple syntactic approach offered by XML 1.0. By definition, such speciated tools do not work in the 'general case', but they do their particular jobs well and are quickly and easily adaptable to changes in the instance documents they encounter. This by contrast to the entire family of processors which begin from the original premise of validity: that the initial task of a tool is to ensure that an instance upon which it might operate first conforms to fixed prior expectation. The former is a basis for responsive, adaptive improvement, while the latter--by its nature static--must, to admit progress at all, be supplemented with a method of extension like the W3C's rulemaking authority. In the former case, we never expect interoperability of processes, but we gain a common, perhaps even portable, body of data or documents which, designed to one narrow set of expectations, may nonetheless be manipulated usefully by widely different processes never anticipated--and certainly never accommodated for--by the document authors. In the latter case, interoperability of process becomes a tactically necessary goal in order to insure the continued, indispensable acquiescence of the developer and user community for an ever-expanding body of 'recommended' practice. Respectfully, Walter Perry
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