[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Here's a good question
From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...> > Ultimately, it was the DOM requirements that neutered it. Yes, as usual Don raises a worthwhile point. XML Schemas is another example where innocent requirements sets the big ship on a course that cannot be changed easily. By contrast, XML's 10 "goals" had enough motherhood statements (and it was a trimming job) to trim out a lot of fat: in particular, "terseness is of minimal importance" I would say that for requirements to have good fruit, they need to avoid statements which prevent moderation: this is not just the extremes of anorexia or bulemia, but extremes of abstraction and too-thin or too-thick layers. I think there are two things that might be very useful for standards-writers: 1) The "worse is better" approach that we will put out a minimal spec first, then a compatible more complete one second: the SAX 1 being followed by SAX 2, for example. So, for example, XML Schemas datatypes should be two specs: one for primitive datatypes and one later one for type restriction mechanisms. 2) The first minimal spec must be fully usable by the main use of the expected layer that sits on top of it. So, for example, XPointer should not have non-WF ranges because these are not simply useable by, in particular, XLinks used for retrieving data over the web. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
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
|