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

RE: Xml is _not_ self describing

• To: 'Gavin Thomas Nicol' <gtn@r...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Xml is _not_ self describing
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:55:19 -0600

That was the conclusion of the X3D team as well. 
VRML syntax is superior for the job, but the 
benefits of syntax integration are there for XML.  

The real arguments start at the API, eg, is the DOM a 
good real time rendering interface.  One argument 
has been, "Well, it works for SVG", but I am 
not yet convinced.   There remain cases where 
values that can be touched by a vanilla DOM 
based on InfoSet like definitions would be 
deadly.  So, syntax, yes.  API, maybe and 
maybe only parts.   This is something the 
generalized XMLer has to consider; knowing 
the XML DOM is not enough.  Some operations 
that work against some apps will return 
errors in others.  Duh, but something we 
have to make clear from time to time.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...]

I agree that XML has practical benefits... but I think the cause is 
more from "standardization" (minimal level of interoperability as 
Marton says), "network effects", "application", and "tribal knowledge" 
than from inherent benefits of the syntax. 

FWIW. I also believe in "the right syntax for the job". 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Xml is _not_ self describing
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Xml is _not_ self describing
• Next by Date: RE: Recursive data structures
• Previous by thread: Recursive data structures
• Next by thread: Re: Xml is _not_ self describing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread