Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTuto
 On 21 May 2002 at 15:39, Betty Harvey wrote: > > I find it interesting that one of the original design goals of XML was: > "The number of optional features is to be kept to an absolute minimum." > This continues to remain true (for XML syntax, anyway). The Second Edition consisted of corrections to the original spec - no new functionality (optional features) were added. Applications of XML syntax (e.g. XSD) are beyond the scope of the 10 origial design goals. > However, in order for a vendor > to supply a validating parser to the general population, the software has > to support DTDs, W3C Schema, RELAX NG, XDR, and who knows what when all > is said and done. It really depends on the user. For exmple, if I am not planning to implement anyhing other than DTDs, parsers that support XSD are not needed/considered. (BTW - are any vendors building XDR parsers at this point?) One can also focus on a single schema language - for example, I can write a RNG schema that can be converted into XSD (although the reverse is certainly not true). I can also convert my DTDs into RNG, allowing me to do most of my work in RNG. (I'm a bit biased here since RNG is, imho, a simple, yet powerful schema language that is easy to learn - much like XML itself). > If a vendor wants to provide e-commerce XML transport they have to support > SOAP, ebXML TRP, now REST. Yes, but none of these are XML - they are (like RNG) an application of the XML syntax to application-level protocols (REST is not a protocol - its an architectural style). Query: there is nothing in the REST architectural style that requires the use of XML -can someone clarify this for me? > > The XML specification is 4 years old and vendors are still having a > difficult time betting on which specifications to put their development > $ in. No matter what they decide it is a gamble. They can't support > everything. > Again, the XML spec itself is quite stable and mature, fairly simple to learn and use. Its only when we start mucking about with XSD, XML- based protocols and industry "standards" (aka applications of XML) that we stray from the original 10 design goals. > XML has so much promise in so many areas. From my personal perspective I > am seeing the demand for XML dwindling. Some of it may be because of the > economy but I believe a lot of it is because of the confusion around the > competing specifications. Organizations that were seriously thinking > about starting XML projects have taken a 'wait and see' attitude. Perhaps one of the missions of the New XML group [1] can be to better clarify the public's perception of what is XML and what is merely an application of XML syntax. JohnE [1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newxmlgroup/ 
|
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
|
|||||||||
