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

Re: NMTOKENS: good or evil?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: NMTOKENS: good or evil?
• From: Martin Probst <martin@x...>
• Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:56:15 +0100
• In-reply-to: <43FBE59B.4030503@a...>
• Organization: X-Hive Corporation
• References: <200602211209.k1LC9rdX024481@a...> <43FBE59B.4030503@a...>

> Not bizarre at all.  Developers want XML technologies to reflect their 
> needs.  So they expose
> the parts of XML that they need, and don't do anything that would 
> promote or entrench the
> extraneous parts of XML.
> 
> This freedom in the long run gives us better and simpler technology, 
> they hope, but at the
> cost of making the current technology ratty, tatty and shitty.  It seems 
> a little cynical
> sometimes. And futile: the next generation of technology with the same 
> attitude will also
> be shitty. The better way is to let the market of users decide what is 
> good technology,
> not the whims of implementers.  (So rather than providing no API for 
> PIs, for example,
> provide the API but give arguments why it is no good.)

Well, the on the other hand you have a standard like XQuery. XQuery is
an extremely powerful language, has a rich syntax, a huge function
library etc. The users bemoan that it's too complex and that it came too
late (which is normal, as designing and implementing such a huge
standard is complex). I think this is always a trade off. Had XSLT1 had
all the features of XSLT2, it would probably have been stillborn.

Regards,
Martin

• References:
  • RE: NMTOKENS: good or evil?
    • From: "Laurent Le Meur" <laurent.lemeur@a...>
  • Re: NMTOKENS: good or evil?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: NMTOKENS: good or evil?
• Next by Date: Did Documents Win? No. Objects Just Couldn't Get Their Act Together.
• Previous by thread: Re: NMTOKENS: good or evil?
• Next by thread: Topic Maps conference Call for Papers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread