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

RE: The general XML processing problem

• To: 'Manos Batsis' <m.batsis@b...>
• Subject: RE: The general XML processing problem
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:35:36 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Agreed.  Dave Durand made me see this clearly 
during the XML WG days with the phrase "magic 
object pixie dust", a phrase now repeated so 
often that he may be regretting it, but still 
pertinent.

It's one thing to implement a bound approach; 
it is another to insist on it as the only 
way to apply XML.   XML enables many approaches, 
but I assert again, portable data and interoperable 
systems aren't the same requirements, and blind 
interoperation anywhere anytime with any resource 
is a daunting problem if other considerations such 
as performance, validity, safety, security, etc. 
enter the picture.

I assert that a minimal XML framework strawman 
is a useful document.   It might be one way 
to cast light in the dark obscure corners of 
the use cases put forward as a basis for deriving 
requirements.  We can't get that from the W3C 
and certainly not from the TAG; yet taking the 
draft architecture document due soon from the 
TAG, then applying that to a mimimal XML framework 
design would be a worthy exercise here on 
XML-Dev.

What is the least one can get away with and work 
with REST principles under the TAG architecture 
draft?   How clever can one really be before the 
optimizations make the implementation fragile?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Manos Batsis [mailto:m.batsis@b...]


Absolutely. But typing in it's OO sense is not the complete answer to
XML problems. Inconsistent, incomplete APIs and luck of control is part
of the problem IMHO. Hiding XML behind classes may be a strong
convenience but current problems are much simpler and directly related
to control over the Infoset.

What worries me even more is that the "progress" in the form of new
drafts does not deal with such issues as much as I would like them too;
instead I see more and more energy behind the OO features related to XML
Schema, like someone took over XML development or something and pushes
everything under the new rag.

• Prev by Date: Re: JDOM vs. JAXP/Xerces for XML document creation
• Next by Date: RE: RE: RELAX NG and type derivation [Was:] XQuery and DTD/Schema?
• Previous by thread: RE: The general XML processing problem
• Next by thread: RE: The general XML processing problem
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread