[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)

• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:51:46 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3EBBA47A.C21740C1@b...>
• References: <1a7.13eb056a.2becbbcb@a...> <3EBBA47A.C21740C1@b...>
• User-agent: Opera7.10/Win32 M2 build 2840

On Fri, 09 May 2003 08:52:10 -0400, Chiusano Joseph 
<chiusano_joseph@b...> wrote:

> <Quote>
> A significant number of people don't want or need the complexity that
> W3C XML Schema brings.
> </Quote>
>
> Absolutely true. But I also believe that the specification is broad
> enough to allow people a wide range of usage choices, from very simple
> to highly complex.

The way I think of it, XML the "organism" is doomed, just like every other 
organism. It may live a long and happy or short and bitter life, I don't 
know.  But the "genes" that shape it are in principle immortal, ao long as 
they can be combined to form "organisms" that can live and spread the genes 
around. (Analogy with Dawkins "Selfish Gene" stuff is deliberate).

So, XML (broadly defined) is just what all the "genes" (or memes, if you 
will) that shaped LISP, SGML, HTML, DSSSL, regular expressions, 
hierarchical data models, and so on have combined to produce in this 
generation.  They are out there combining, reproducing, mutating, evolving 
all the time (witness RELAX NG, the "binary XML" experiments, Xduce ...) in 
all sorts of different incompatible directions). No one can control this, 
not W3C, OASIS, ISO ... Some of these close relatives to the XML organism 
will survive and pass on the productive genes/memes, some are going to be 
forgotten quickly.

Think of us XML geeks as gardeners: Some of these things are invasive weeds 
that are hard to kill (e.g. ill-formed syntax because of the "be liberal in 
what you consume" principle), some hothouse orchids that are beautiful but 
won't survive in the wild (I personally put many of the Semantic Web ideas 
here),  some are genetically engineered (well, committee-defined) 
"Frankenfoods" that some big companies have produced for consumption by 
manipulated consumers, and so on.  I think it's the duty of geeks to think 
of ourselves as Darwinian agents exercising UN-natural selection when 
confronted with all this rank growth -- there's not room in the ecosystem 
for all of it, so we  "vote with our trowels": dig up the weeds and compost 
them, transplant and fertilize the desireable stuff.

Even "Frankenfoods" such as XSDL and XQuery have a lot of good genetic 
material in them.  It's unrealistic to expect the "genetic engineers" in 
the committee room to do the hard work of figuring out which of those 
designer genes will thrive. As Michael Kay and others who participate in 
the W3C have said many times, that's really asking too much of humans 
working in groups.  So, all of us toiling in our little corners of the 
ecosystem have to decide which parts to weed out (by not implementing, not 
using, not recommending) and which to select and cross-breed.

Sorry, I know I dearly love to beat analogies into the ground.  Just 
compost this if you think it's nonsense :-)

• References:
  • Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...
  • Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Some random noise on rational type systems for XML
• Next by Date: RE: Relax NG - increasing acceptance at W3C?
• Previous by thread: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• Next by thread: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread