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

Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web

  • From: Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
  • To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
  • Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 08:13:08 +0000

Re:  RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:45:04 EST
BillClare3@aol.com wrote:

>  
>  
> Several proposals have been made here to  integrate a variety of 
> fundamental XML standards.   
> Most take an approach of jamming some subset  of a disparate variety
> of standards into a common structure that maintains all  their
> idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies.

Not the source of this thread Bill, see James blog entry. 


>  An alternative approach is to abstract
> from competing  specifications and generalize their essential
> substance.  This can provide simpler and more flexible foundations
> with which to rebuild higher level concepts. 

JC had a target, without one you'd have 42 different definitions of
'essential'? 



>  With such
> foundations,  compatibility with existing name spaces can be
> maintained but deprecated.

I'd go further and not require any full level of compatibility,
following the SGML to XML model. The goal is a cleaner smaller
better integrated subset suitable for the web/mobile/2010. 
That would drop lots of Amelias hard to explain bits. 

> Among these fundamental concepts for language foundations  are : 
> ·         Data Types – with  nesting, inheritance, extension,
> constraints and executable methods 

Is that really a required part of a new SXML? I'd put Schemas 
and datatype validation as an XML application. 


> ·         Data Attributes –  especially extended specifications for 
> metadata, storage, communication,  presentation, dynamics, etc. 
Growing XML? In which case I don't understand this item?
> ·         Data structures –  atoms, lists, hierarchies, networks 
As above? How to justify making SXML more complex than XML?
Wheres the market for this?

> ·         Expressions –  arithmetic, logical, selection, iteration,
> path, set, query, etc. - with basic  and extendible types.  
 Again an application? Not a part of basic SXML? Based on xpath?


I  don't understand the rest of your post in the context of JC blog.
It seems to move in the direction of XML applications more and more.





-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk


[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.