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

Re: NextXML.org - a working space.

  • From: Cecil New <cecil.new@gmail.com>
  • To: BillClare3@aol.com, elharo@i..., xml-dev@l...
  • Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:52:19 -0500

Re:  NextXML.org - a working space.
After all the discussion, I tend to like Elliotte's approach best (http://cafe.elharo.com/xml/xml-2-0/).  I work on long term archival standards in the A&D space (http://www.asd-stan.org/Lotar.html) and we design in the standards the notion of "conformance classes".

My interepretation of Elliotte's approach is that he wants a conformance class of XML - a strict subset (or at least with minimal extensions), but a subset that carries official weight that can be a coded to and conformance with tested and measured.

I agree that such an approach would have a high likelihood of success and has the advantage of (large?) compatibility with existing tools and processes - not too disruptive, but offering significant productivity to the community.

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:17 AM, <BillClare3@aol.com> wrote:
We are a very disparate group here, coming from many different backgrounds, many with a very particular focus. 
 
Consensus, as you say, is difficult and indeed impossible.  Consensus in a variety of smaller areas seems feasible.  For a more comprehensive approach, there will need to evolve some decision process with something like a "chief architect".
 
One of the worst dangers here is that support from a commercial supplier of browsers will be necessary, and they will be motivated to run away with early and incomplete approaches.   
 
Maybe the exercise can be organized usefully though.
 
Organization is fundamental and I'm sure will, and certainly must, evolve in unforeseeable ways.  The following illustrates one possibility for a general framework. 
 
As a starting point there seems to be two fundamentally different camps; both useful, but in quite different ways, but needing separate areas of development:
 
* Those who advocate incremental, evolutionary and reasonably compatible change in a variety of areas.
   Here what is needed is a series of topics that can be easily created and evolved towards some sort of formal recommendation.  Here only partial consensus is needed;  e.g., I suspect two, hopefully complementary, approaches for comments will evolve.
 
 
* Those who advocate radical, revolutionary change, albeit with compatibility considerations.
   Here there needs to an outline of topics to be developed.   
 
   The latter is more difficult. Separate topics for objectives, requirements, specifications, design principles, design issues, document guidelines etc. is an obvious starting point.  In the long run, these can evolve from discussion entries to an area for formal resolution and public documentation.
... snip ...


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.