Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: breaking up?
 At 10:59 AM 05/08/01 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote: >On the other side seem to be people who find the results of XML 1.0 interesting but not nearly good enough by themselves. These folks seem intent on decorating XML with a number of features - Namespaces, W3C XML Schema, XInclude, etc. - which add to XML's capabilities at some cost in its clarity. Hmm, do you claim that all the things that have been piled on XML 1.0 fall into a single qualitative bucket? It seems to me that Namespaces, XSLT, and XSchema (to pick 3) are horses of very different colours, in terms of scope, philosophy, and general intellectual space. To me, the fragmentation point is between those who think the data structures are the real thing - the Schema/Infoset/PSVI/Query world-view - and those who want to maximize interoperability at the level of syntax: XML/namespaces/SAX/maybe-XSLT. And I agree with Simon that this fragmentation is not necessarily damaging. I have to say that a high proportion of the real-world apps of XML I see are concerned with generating tags & attributes at one end of an interface and parsing them at another, and the people writing them never think for an instant about infosets or subelement qualification. And hand-creation and on-screen viewing of XML are quite common, but mostly in design & debug mode, which seems appropriate. -Tim >Maybe it's time for these two groups to go their separate ways. XML 1.0 itself, in my view, already gave the 'decorators' too many features, and we've been cursed with odd warning labels (think external subsets) ever since. > >Maybe we should look at XML 1.0 as a shared foundation, but not expect XML itself to be a solution. It's a starting point, both for people who want less and people who want more, a compromise that worked very well for a time but can't last forever. > >I know that there are those who want XML kept as monolithic as possible, a shared set of tools which can be applied neatly in every situation. The tools we have, however, aren't monolithic, aren't even necessarily interoperable, and give different groups of people very different problems. > >I think markup would survive such a fragmentations, and survive usefully. It already does. > >Simon St.Laurent > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------ >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > >To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word >"unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@l... 
|
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
|
|||||||||
