Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 09:48 AM 09/10/01 -0400, Champion, Mike wrote: >I haven't seen much response to Adam Bosworth's commentary on the state of >XML and the W3C: >http://www.xmlmag.com/upload/free/features/xml/2001/11nov01/et0111/et0111.as >p For those who don't know, Adam's this real smart guy who led QuattroPro dev for Borland, then went to Microsoft and led the development of Access and IE4. Now he's at BEA. I thought the interesting thing that Adam suggested was that maybe the big mistake with XMLSchema is that it's trying to be all things to all factions in the XML community. He claims that it's really lousy for the purposes of the XML-as-datagram-message-interchange people - which is his main focus. Maybe the notion of one central overarching schema language just doesn't pay off at the end of the day. We need a bunch of smaller special-purpose content constraint facilities tuned to particular application classes. You could, with only a moderate leap of the imagination, draw a parallel to Unix - there's a common view of all data as a sequence of byte-accessible file primitives, then a large family of specialized tools that do useful things with the data and a good clean mechanism for combining them. [That's the historical view - later-generation tools like perl, emacs, and web browsers conflated all sorts of different data processing functions in a useful way, but they had a lot of experience to build on]. Hmm... what's the XML equivalent of "|"? -Tim
|
