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

Re: Question for the XPath and DOM folks

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Question for the XPath and DOM folks
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:26:55 -0400
• In-reply-to: <E17W46F-0006OU-00@m...>

7/20/2002 7:57:03 PM, Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...> wrote:

>
>I suppose this "learning" is what is causing the XQuery/XPath meld?  If so, 
>I'm not sure there is a net gain from learning such a lesson specs influence 
>each other to become *more* complex.

I was referring to the AB, TAG, tendency for working groups to operate in
public, and generally greater attention to the idea that eternal vigilance
is the price of consistency.  For example, look at the last few days of
discussions on the TAG list about reconciling the resource / representation /
URI / URI reference ideas with what HTML and RDF actually do.  
The DOM / XPath data model issues would surely
be subjected to that level of scrutiny if the two inconsistent specs
were working through the process today.   The Director has a lot more help
these days to recognize and sort out inconsistencies, and a lot more people 
looking over his shoulder to make sure that he does. 


>
>This is a good start.  Basically, it's adding the more modest profile I talk 
>about above, but ex post facto.  

Yup.  The havoc that CDATA sections and external entities play with tree
data models is becoming obvious, and the notion that they HAVE to be resolved
or thrown away before the InfoSet-based specs see them is becoming widely
accepted.  That seemed like "cheating" in DOM Level 1 days.
In retrospect, the 80/20 solution seems obvious, but recall that two years
ago, the notion that XML 1.0 was more complex than it really ought to be was
quasi-heretical even on this list. 


>
>I must say, Mike.  Knowing you, I bet you fought for a simpler resolution than 
>what resulted. 

You have the causality reversed.  I used to wallow in conceptual filth and
complexity in the false belief that hard work could lead to redemption.
The horror of dealing with namespaces in DOM caused me to pledge my soul to Occam, 
and accept Pareto as my personal savior :~)

> This is one example of why I'd like the W3C veil of secrecy 
>abolished. 

Agreed.  This seems to be the wave of the future at the W3c; all the web services
stuff is done in public, and I think that has improved the SOAP 1.2 spec (c.f. 
Paul Prescod's holding their feet to the fire about the HTTP binding issues).
Likewise, the TAG does a lot of its work under public scrutiny ... as I said
above, that really is one big reason I don't think the DOM / XPath mess would
have happened under todays W3C process.   

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Question for the XPath and DOM folks
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• References:
  • Re: Question for the XPath and DOM folks
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Question for the XPath and DOM folks
• Next by Date: Re: The version number in XML documents
• Previous by thread: Re: Question for the XPath and DOM folks
• Next by thread: Re: Question for the XPath and DOM folks
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread