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

Perceived C/B for XML 1.1

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Perceived C/B for XML 1.1
• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: 21 Oct 2002 09:01:29 +0200

Thinking about XML 1.1, I am wondering what will be the perceived
cost/benefit ratio and if XML 1.1 will not have the XHTML syndrom. 

Speaking for myself as a XML user, I clearly see the cost (I need to
updgrade all my XML applications to use XML 1.1 since a XML 1.0 parser
will not read a XML 1.1 document and a XML 1.0 "writer" will write only
XML 1.0 documents), but I don't see any use case for the XML 1.1 in my
own applications (I have never met a NEL and have never needed to define
names beyond what possible with XML 1.0). 

I guess I am not the only one in this case since I am mainly using
characters from ISO-8859-1 which is already seen as quite exotic by
many...

Anyway, if I needed to define a migration strategy right now, with the
(mis)understanding I have of XML 1.1 today, I'd classify my applications
in three categories:

1) Internal XML applications which do not exchange documents with the
external world.

For these ones, I have no perceived need for XML 1.1 but XML 1.1
wouldn't break them either so I would be "neutral" and not force the
migration but not oppose it either if the applications in my favorite
distribution become XML 1.1 compliant.

My workstations are running Debian unstable and would likely pick some
XML 1.1 within months but my servers are running Debian stable and it's
not likely that they pick XML 1.1 before the next stable release...

2) Sender applications produce XML for the outside world. Their number
one priority is to produce documents that can be read by as many
external applications as possible and since I have no neeed for XML 1.1
features which will balance this priority, I would firmly stick to XML
1.0 as long as XML 1.1 isn't supported and prefered by virtually all
these external readers.

3) Receiver applications read documents from the outside world. They
would probably the main drivers to migrate to XML 1.1: if significant
information sources send information as XML 1.1, I would have implement
at least a gateway to accept these documents. OTH, if the external
providers which send me these documents have the same policy than I
would have for my sender applications, is it likely to happen?

I am an unicode illetrate and I am probably missing a lot of important
reasons why I need XML 1.1 without knowing it :-) but my feeling is that
if those reasons are not more clearly advertised than "IBM mainframes
need it" or "it's the right way to use unicode", the adoption rate of
XML 1.1 could be very low.

My 0,02 Euros

Eric
-- 
Rendez-vous a Paris (Forum XML).
                          http://www.technoforum.fr/integ2002/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Perceived C/B for XML 1.1
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: Perceived C/B for XML 1.1
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • RE: Perceived C/B for XML 1.1
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: Perceived C/B for XML 1.1
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
• Next by Date: RE: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
• Previous by thread: RE: Java package for XPath 1.0
• Next by thread: Re: Perceived C/B for XML 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread