Tim Bray writes: > I disagree. While I still dislike the AF attribute remapping syntax, I > think there was a whole complex of great ideas lurking in there that > failed to succeed because the language used to describe them was more or > less completely impenetrable. I know I pretty well completely failed to > understand it, and only kind of got it when walked through step by step > with lots of examples, and subsequently remained completely unable to > follow the discussions among the cognoscenti. I did my best to promote AF's right around the time XML 1.0 came out, but I agree with Tim that language was the biggest barrier to adoption. RDF and Topic Maps suffer from much the same problem -- there is a tendency for people to take a simple concept like element aliases (Architectural Forms) or entity/relationship serialization (RDF, Topic Maps) and bury it in such obtuse and self-aggrandizing language that no one can make head or tails of the specification. I have to admit that as members of the old XML WG, Tim and I allowed some of the same kind of thing to happen with the Namespace specification: you wouldn't guess from a first (or third) read through the REC that Namespaces are nothing more than XML package names, like the package systems in Java, Python, or Perl. XML 1.0 is a good counter-example -- an honest spec that uses plain language without sacrificing technical quality. All the best, David -- David Megginson, david@m..., http://www.megginson.com/
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