|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Market-driven vice Committee-driven technology evolution [was: xPath 2.0
To my mind there are two ways for a technology to evolve: (1) A committee has complete reigns on the technology and decides how it evolves. There may be input into the evolution from outside agencies, but it is primarily a single group that controls its evolution. xPath, XSLT, and XML Schemas are following this approach. (2) A group creates the initial framework. That ends its role. From then on the technology evolves independently, in a distributed fashion as the market demands. The initial technology framework serves effectively as a stimulant into the marketplace. Cottage industries crop up to fill niche markets. Good extensions succeed, bad extensions die. The marketplace decides. RSS 1.0 is following this approach. ...... My bias is towards (2). I like the notion of market-driven technologies and feel that it is more akin to the philosophy of the Web. I would be in favor of the W3 making just version 1.0 of each XML technology, then encouraging the marketplace to extend it where suitable. [Of course, this would require that version 1.0 be developed in a fashion pliable to extensions by third parties.] What do you see as the advantages/disadvantages of the above two approaches to technology evolution? What would be needed to get xPath, XSLT, and XML Schema to evolve in a manner consistent with (2)? /Roger
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








