[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: The XML Backlash
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 00:38:26 -0500, Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...> wrote: > I wonder if there are analogous cases in the history of technolgy > (ahem, besides SGML?) where a set of good ideas got out of control. HTML came immediately to my mind in this context. You had a basic good idea that caught like wildfire, was used for all kinds of thing not originally anticipated, and was extended willy-nilly. The low point came around the turn of the century, where the complexity of what was being attempted was continuing to accelerate. At the same time we had a bunch of good ideas about how to address the outstanding problems... and even standards built around those ideas (XHTML CSS2 etc) but support that was so patchy that most applications couldn't act on it. In the intervening years incredible progress has been made. Not to say that HTML doesn't still have problems or that browsers compatibility is no longer a problem... but with serviceable and improving CSS support and serviceable and improving browser DOM model consistency, we're now doing exactly the things with browser facing code that we were frustrated and stymied on in 2000. At the same time many of the things people once tried to solve with HTML or build into HTML have branched and are more healthy because of it. SVG, MathML, Flash, PDF, SOAP (or REST if your prefer), etc... My take is that we are today with XML where we were in 98 with HTML. There are a bunch of recognized issues, a bunch of different solutions, work arounds, etc. We're working on recognizing problems as belonging to "classes" so that when we look at solutions we can distinguish between things that solve problems and things that solve important classes of problems. We're working on figuring out what makes sense to solve in XML and where it makes sense to branch out (the binary XML proposals seem balanced on this line). > If so, what happened? Did people just learn to ignore the cruft and > stick with what worked without worrying about it? Did the mess get > re-factored back into the good ideas plus whatever was learned on the > way ? Did the whole thing -- wheat, chaff, babies, bathwater -- get > replaced by something else? My experience is that it's a combination of the first two. You always have to take the useful pieces and ignore the rest... that's true anytime you use a general purpose tool for a specific application. But best forward momentum comes from an evolution that includes refactoring. It's a judgement call just how closely each generation of solutions should be based on the last. My personal opinion is that future generations of XML are going to carry forward large portions of what we have today. That some critical needs will be met by updating XML fundamentals and the rest will be met by a clear branching of concerns (as MathML meets the needs of equation layout without altering core HTML). And that backwards compatibility will fall on the backs of the developers of the next generation of XML applications. Just my 2c... --------->Nathan -- .:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:.
|
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
|