Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Sorting out what we agree and disagree on (was Re:[xml-dev
Mike Champion wrote:
> The common strands in the "alternative syntaxes for XML infosets"
> threads ("binary" is just one particular aspect) seem to be:
>
> - "XML" is more than just UnicodeWithAngleBrackets, it's a constellation
> of technologies that are inter-related in a mutually-supporting but
> formally ambiguous way. XML's success in the real world comes from their
> synergy, not any one (e.g. the syntax) in isolation.
I'm not 100% certain that I agree with this, but that's because I think that
your statement could be interpreted in two ways.
I'm pretty much certain that people are drawn to XML in very large part for the
"XML constellation" (I wonder what it looks like :). I remember the early days
when I was pitching XML around and people invariably replied "Yeah this sounds
very cool, but what can I do with it?" The current situation imho justifies that
people will want to use XML for its global benefits, even if it creates local
problems. OTOH I do believe that all that goodness originates in
UnicodeWithAngleBrackets and wouldn't exist if XML 1.0 wasn't that and just
that. I think we agree, but using ""XML"" here may be slightly confusing.
> These diverse applications developers are
> facing a diverse set of challenges in dealing with the XML syntax, and
> are looking for ways to get the benefits of "XML" while relaxing the
> constraints of XML syntax. Among these challenges -- which are
> different, and almost certainly have no common solution
I hear that a lot, yet I'm not convinced. I understand the intuition, but that
doesn't give my "almost certain[t]y". A single solution can be devised to be
configurable in order to be tunable to various needs, while still remaining
internally coherent.
> If we've learned anything
> from the first 5 years of XML, it's that it can't succeed as a "big ball
> of mud" that pollutes document applications with data-specific concepts
> or data applications with document-specific concepts.
Yes!
> - Actual standardization of various alternative serializations is
> something to discuss and explore at this point, not to move rapidly
> ahead with. Much more real performance data, clearer delineation of
> communities with similar requirements, etc., and experimentation with
> real alternatives is needed first.
I mostly agree, though I'm not sure of how to make that happen. I liked your
idea of a common research program à la XQuery. I also think we shouldn't be
waiting /too/ long because binary infosets are being ratified in open systems
and there's little fun in coming up with something when, say, millions of cell
phones have already shipped with something else :) I don't want to have to go up
against another SWF/Flash.
--
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
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
|
|||||||||
