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

RE: No to RELAX-NG (for now)

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: RE: No to RELAX-NG (for now)
• From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>
• Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:52:39 -0800 (PST)
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306D7F344@HQ5>

Len, a very happy new year to you, and everyone again.

I like the way Len had put across his view points. However, I would say
that -- "Necessity is the mother of invention", and alternate schemas if
they exist, it is not because it is necessary to outdo others, rather
because they are necessary for our applications.

<warning>speaking for himself only<warning>

cheers and regards - murali.

On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> Some don't want to replace DTDs.  They have the tools already
> and their enterprise and partners are using them.
>
> Some don't want to rebuild working DTDs.  They don't have to
> unless some get their way and rip them out of XML as a means
> to simplify their own systems at the expense of working systems.
>
> Moving from a DTD to an XML Schema isn't that hard if you have
> the background and the support of your own enterprise and its
> trading partners.  If you haven't got a DTD, skip that and
> move on to an alternative.  It is a tool that is past its
> prime.
>
> RELAX NG?  Do you have the tools, do you need the tools,
> do you have the background and the support of your own enterprise
> and its trading partners?
>
> RELAX is marvelous.  So is a DeLorian.  I can't afford one
> but I'll sure pull over and let it pass.  I hope not to pay
> for parts for one.   RELAX NG becomes the tool of choice
> when it is the affordable tool and enough other drivers have
> them that the lines in the parking lot are sized appropriately.
> Is RELAX today's tech?  See above.  It is a good thing to
> know that independents are preparing tools.   It will be
> better when commercial sources deliver them.
>
> Mark is saying something obvious:  despite the inclination of
> the XML industry and its leaders to tweak, compete, and outdo
> each other in pursuit of elegant designs (a fun and sometimes
> noble pursuit), those who have to deliver on time and within
> budget resist that tweaking.  They have to.   Note today's
> USA Today in which the original 100 dot.com notables just got
> reduced to 50 (even Commerce One was removed) to reflect
> an industry in which shakeout, merger, and re-catergorization
> are the dominant processes.   Note that in some cases, other
> standards efforts that depend on XML as a basis have to simply
> punt away the newer draft specs and proceed on their own because
> they cannot reliably predict when these specs will settle down
> long enough to work with them.   This isn't just "non-XMLers
> who don't get it".  Some are serious business interests who
> have to move at a pace matched by returns on investment.  It
> is one thing to be a university funded project, an independently
> wealthy developer, or even a poor and brilliant hacker; it is
> another to work to schedule under contract with punitive provisions
> for default.  Again, some of us have to bet our companies on
> reliable vendors such as Microsoft because when we carefully
> consider the alternatives, the holders of those make the bets
> too risky.  Mark said "no for now".  That isn't an unsensible
> thing to say.  "No now and forever" would be.
>
> So we can't dismiss Mark out of hand and we can't blame Internet
> Time because the Internet is almost out of time, a condition of
> it's own making.  When something is working, it may seem stodgy
> to dismiss innovation, and it is often risky, but it is as Ben
> Franklin tells us, the bird worth holding.
>
> len
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Evdemon [mailto:jevdemon@v...]
>
> On Thursday, January 03, 2002 12:49 PM, Mark Evans wrote:
> >
> > Now we see schemas finally making their escape.  That is a
> > good thing.  I dislike the idea of replacing them with
> > something else.
>
> Even if the "something else" is easier to learn and use?
> I imagine some people thought the same thing about replacing
> DTDs with XML Schema.
>
> > Because schemas have been so long coming, everyone I meet is
> > using DTDs. This kind of backwardness is caused by
> > uncertain, zig-zag standards development.
>
> Given the significant investments in DTD development, moving
> to XSD may not be a viable (or necessary) option.
>
> > I grant that RELAX NG may be better.  Frankly, I've never heard of it
> > until now.  I looked at the web sites.  Ho hum is my impression --
> > more XML tweaking when what the world needs is a stable XML standard.
>
> I suggest you go back and re-read the RNG spec - its an amazing bit of
> work.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>

• References:
  • RE: No to RELAX-NG (for now)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: The use of XML syntax in XML Query
• Next by Date: Re: The use of XML syntax in XML Query
• Previous by thread: RE: No to RELAX-NG (for now)
• Next by thread: RE: No to RELAX-NG (for now)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread