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

RE: Partyin' like it's 1999

• To: 'Michael Champion' <michaelc.champion@g...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:27:05 -0500

Dunno, Mike.  How many companies do we want to 
put out of business this time?  How much code 
do we want to obsolete so that applications that 
were nearly done are now codeBits (do you want 
fries with that?) Is this a case of tidying or 
do we get a whole new set of 'inventors'?  Why 
not toss out this whole 'pointy' thing and get 
back to a clean one pass parse based on proper 
data definitions, white space, end of lines, 
and curlies (let's Do C!)?

Right...

I read the applied DevCon papers thinking that 
this is what geeks do:  out do other geeks. It 
may be the case that XSD is overbuilt but there 
are alternatives.  It may be the case that XML 
is too verbose but there are alternatives.  It 
may be that namespaces open portals to hell, but... 
well there is no but for that one.  We're once 
again stuck with a YAGNI solution that causes 
problems once it gets applied outside the narrow 
mission for which it was designed (and that will 
be the limit to Rutan's solution too.  Ever measure 
the radiation endured in suborbital flight through 
composites?).

There comes a point where the business execs and 
the data owners look back and say "good enough" 
and push back because the costs of reinnovation 
are restarts in too many places. 

So that bit of curmudgeonry aside, I expect some 
application language shake-out, but do-over of 
XML (a la Park), it ain't gonna happen.  Are there 
any non-XML geeks, or are there XML geeks still 
trying to make the front pages of C/Net?

len


From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@g...]

We're coming up on the 5-year anniversary of the mother of all xml-dev
permathreads, about whether XML and the related specs are too complex
and in need of  simplification.

<snip/>

So, 5 years later ... is it NOW time to think seriously about cleaning
up the core XML specs  to address the challenges that real-world
non-XMLgeeks have with them (hopefully without throwing out the
interoperability baby with the bathwater), is it time to redouble
efforts to educate non-XMLgeeks on why they should eat their XML 1.0
veggies and stop whining, will better tools and best practice
guidelines solve the problems, or what?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: When to check entity WFness according to 4.3.2
• Next by Date: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• Previous by thread: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by thread: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread