[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Call for unifying and clarifying XML 1.0, DOM, XPATH, and XML Infose
[Nils Klarlund:] > XML should be about a universal and simple model of trees based on > the linear syntax of XML 1.0, right? Well, it's not. I hope to > generate a discussion of how the current multitude of models can be > unified. This message is long, reflecting the enormity of the > confusion that's being sown. And, I want to convince everybody > who's interested that it'll be a conspicuous failure not to unify > terminology and models; conversely, I believe that at a little > price, involving a small amount of back-pedaling, XML could get an > attractive and universal model. Time is running out, however. I continue to find it astonishing and frustrating that, despite the fact that all this was already straightened out, and very cleanly indeed, in the ISO/IEC 10744:1997 international standard, excellent people like Nils Klarlund still don't know about it, or, if they do, they choose to ignore it. Nils's analysis of this situation fails to even mention groves and property sets, much less compare their carefully balanced elegance with the ongoing W3C design chaos that he so deplores. Meanwhile the W3C insists on reinventing everything, badly, in a state of profound confusion about what they're doing, with predictable results. When ISO 10744 concepts are adopted by the W3C, as has happened several times now, the underlying concepts that keep all the concepts working well together and in balance with each other are *not* adopted predictable results. The DOM, for example, is partly the result of adopting the SGML Property Set, without adopting the concept of what a property set is and what a grove is. (There are other equally compelling examples.) Hey, people, why not pay some attention to something that works, for a change, instead of paying so much attention to the pathetic spectacle of a dog chasing its own tail? If the W3C were led rationally by people with the public interest at heart, the fact that the relevant ISO stuff actually works would get some serious attention there. As things are, it's a thought-crime punishable by excommunication even to utter the dreaded ISO 10744 term "architectural form" within earshot of the W3C. Either they simply don't get it, or, if they do, they have made their minds up and they don't want to be confused by the facts. Or they characterize themselves as political pragmatists, making irresponsible technical decisions that are guided, first of all, by the technical misunderstandings, irrational phobias, and pet projects of Tim Berners-Lee. After all, if their work runs afoul of any of Tim's misunderstandings, phobias, or pet projects, it cannot be adopted. It's no wonder that technical things are such a mess at the W3C: its structural problems are profound and intractable. As Nils fears, maybe the W3C will reform its chaotic technical situation after it's too late, after monopolistic commercial interests have made the W3C's multi-flawed approaches irrelevant by simply running them over. However, after that has happened, much as we may love Microsoft, we cannot expect the public interest to be served by unregulated software monopolies. We can expect to pay annual tribute to them forever, not only in the form of money, but also (and much more expensively) in the form of lost productivity, because of the lack of effective marketplace competition. That loss of productivity hurts all of us, and all of our children, and all of our children's children, indefinitely. Think about how much work you have lost because of Windows crashing, just for an exceptionally obvious (and extremely irritating) example. One of the W3C's structural problems is that the business plans of the software monopolists who control the W3C may actually benefit from a situation in which the W3C's many excellent people cannot develop a comprehensive, sensible approach to online information management and publishing. The vacuum thus created is a playground for software monopolists. Although it's too much to ask, I hope that everyone who makes technical decisions at the W3C will ponder my views, insist upon structural reforms, and understand the unifying and balancing concepts of ISO/IEC 10744. (As one of the editors of 10744, I've been willing and available to help them understand these ideas for the last three years, but, despite repeatedly knocking on the door, I've been uniformly excluded from all W3C undertakings. Eliot Kimber, another editor of 10744, was involved in W3C activities until he quit in disgust when the recommendations of his committee were capriciously overturned by the Director.) The W3C's insistence on reinventing everything, without understanding both the failures and successes of preceding efforts, is childish, lazy, and extremely irresponsible. Not to mention "dictatorial" -- a word which springs to mind because of the lack of any lawful mechanism for removing Tim Berners-Lee from a post for which he is obviously underqualified. Perhaps the single most profound structural problem at the W3C is the W3C Directorship's absolute authority, which serves as a means of avoiding public scrutiny of the W3C's private, very arguably conspiracy-in-restraint-of-trade deliberations, while avoiding antitrust prosecution under the Sherman Act. Shame on the press for failing to make all this abundantly clear to the public, whose interests the press is supposed to protect by exposing exactly these kinds of issues. It's discouraging that so much of the press is in bed with Microsoft (a major, major advertiser) and with the W3C ("I can't afford to alienate my access to a secret process, man"). The W3C's enormous influence is the creature of the press, as is the lack of influence garnered by ISO 10744. Reform only comes by people thinking for themselves and doing whatever seems best, even when nobody else is doing it. It takes courage and candor. It's expensive for individuals (M.L. King springs to mind), but it's the only way society makes any progress. If your personal comfort is more important to you than the progress of society and the welfare of everyone, including but not limited to yourself, then I'm wasting my breath. -Steve Note: The views expressed herein are exactly the same as those of my employer. -- Steven R. Newcomb, President, TechnoTeacher, Inc. srn@t... http://www.techno.com ftp.techno.com voice: +1 972 517 7954 fax +1 972 517 4571 Suite 211 7101 Chase Oaks Boulevard Plano, Texas 75025 USA xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 Unsubscribe by posting to majordom@i... the message unsubscribe xml-dev (or) unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email@your-subscribed-address Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.
|
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
|