[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Lyon [mailto:david@g...] > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 12:50 AM > To: Jeff Greif; david@g...; Bullard, Claude L (Len); > xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups > [usual disclaimer applies even more than usual!] > I'm particularly interested in collecting a list of issues > with the XML 1.0 specifications as they apply to the practical world and then > translating these into something more positive. It may be that XML 2.0 > might be bigger and better, or it may be that it's smaller, faster and more > succinct. My impression is that the W3C thinks of XML1.0 + namespaces + xml:base, with PIs sortof deprecated and MAYBE including XSDL, as the moral equivalent of XML 2.0 One fact that is seldom noted is that SOAP 1.1, and (currently) SOAP 1.2 implicitly define a subset of XML 1.0 ( no DTDs or PIs), but with namespace support and (perhaps in 1.2) xml:base support required. Without a DTD, you can't define most of the things that cause people grief in the practical world. > That's up to us where we all wish to take it. Here's a concrete idea: sort of an XML Wikipedia-like http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?HomePage open-content effort to document and explain the parts of the XML Family that people find truly useful in real life. I'm not sure if there is a way of keeping the focus on what people actually use rather than fun stuff that people think about or play with [Hmmm ... the Wikipedians say that they really don't have as big a problem with cranks and zealots as one might expect ...]. Anyway, I don't really know much about WikiWiki or other open content projects or the technology behind them. I do believe that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the W3C would take on the task of refactoring XML based on what works in the practical world; the W3C tries to operate on the basis of consensus among its members, and it's much easier to get consensus on doing "A and B" than choosing between "A or B". (Not to mention the fact that a BigCo will not take kindly to a spec that deprecates a feature they have invested heavily in supporting). I can at least hope that some sort of natural selection process would make a an open content XMLipedia focused on what people really know and care about; the bleeding edge stuff will be flagged with enough questions, comments, and revisions so that the boundaries of "what really works" will be apparent to the reader. Does anyone think such an idea makes sense? Is the "Wiki paradigm" really worth latching on to? If so, how does one move forward ... I guess this could be grafted on to Wikipedia itself ... On the other hand, we really should eat our own dogfood and use XML. I have the premonition that Dave Winer will tell me that some combination of OPL and RSS (+XML-RPC?) would do what I envision better than Wiki does .... Thoughts?
|
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
|