[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: loosely and tightly coupled systems and type annotation
On Fri, 2002-07-12 at 15:35, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > Nor should an application be forbidden to tightly couple > using XML. Of course not. > An application can't require this of > of XML. The choice should be made based on the requirements > of the application. So why the controversy over what is > the most basic and easily understood aspects of markup > and markup systems? Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be that well understood. > It all comes down to one's interpretation of "What Is XML?" > Those who religiously, politically, or ambitiously lump > XML application frameworks into "requirements for XML" > do a disservice and commit a technical blunder. Teaching > this in the universities is an academic conceit. > > XML core is simply XML 1.0: FULL STOP. Not, > XSLT, not XSD, not namespaces, not RELAX NG, > not .NET, and certainly not SVG, XHTML, and so forth. 100% agreed. > As long as that core remains untouched, all of the debates > on loose and tight coupling, schemas, strong typing vs > lexical and structural named types, are simply and > only choices of the application engineer. While in > the context of designing an application, it can be > convenient to blur these distinctions, at the strictest > levels of definition, the following hold: > > o Element != object > o Attribute != field > o Elements and attributes are not rows and columns > o Namespaces are just flags > o XML systems != The Web > o The Web != The Internet > > XSLT is an application language. XHTML is an application > language. SVG is an application language. .NET is an > application framework. The Web is a system of systems > for assigning, persisting and resolving identity properties > to representations of entities known as resources. Yep, but you need to be careful how you add layers on layers and creating a dependency between XPath and type annotation is, IMO, a complete disaster. > These are easy ideas made complicated by the insistence > that the WWW become an application framework evermore > tightly bound to interlocking specifications to meet the > requirements of blind interoperability for systems > that identify and retrieve resource representations. > > Understand clearly that these are not requirements of XML; > XML is an enabler for these requirements, not their source. When have I said anything else? > > Do what you will with these, but the originator > is responsible for selling ideas and systems, and > the term "sell" is deliberate. Don't consider > the work a "standard" until it is adopted as such, > and then remember that the social behavior of adopting > standards is predicated on willingness based on perceived > value, not the source. Technical groupies are this > century's most pathetic beings. But don't consider that any organization can "own" ideas either and have any way to force people in a direction they don't want to follow :-) Eric > len > -- See you in San Diego. http://conferences.oreillynet.com/os2002/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com (W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
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
|