Re: terra incognita
On Wednesday 19 December 2001 12:56 pm, Paul T wrote: > > That wasn't it's design point. I think XML has been forced into > > situations that it wasn't designed for, and for which it is less than > > ideal. > > I agree with Michael's letter, which is > "... Ahh, but that's true of most technologies that really take off...." Right, but as I said, things don't usually stay there: they evolve beyond the kludge, generally when the second or thrid generation solutions come along. Also, I think market dynamics and international standards are somewhat at odds here. Market dynamics are exposing gaps in functionality that need to be filled for sure. The questions are whether you standardize on something poor and/or destabalize things for the sake or market dynamics. Maybe I'm still naive enough to believe that standards *can* be good technically and have widespread benefits (and in fact, I think Unicode and XML generally *are* good ;-)). FWIW. I'm very happy to let SOAP/.Net/<whatever> happen. The problem is that people rush into standardization during the prototype phase, when few of the larger issues have become apparent, let alone been thought about. Let markets run, and then standardize what results... but in the process, don't the kludge on everyone else. Adding control characters to XML for the sake of serialization is a knee-jerk reaction at best. FWIW. I agree with you too: a small subset of XML should be designed for use in things like WebDAV etc. Call it something else and give it different rules. Maybe the XML encoding of ASN.1 is it, maybe not (especially as ASN.1 is more about grammars).
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