Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: [SUMMARY #1] Why is there little usage of XML on the 'visi
 sterling said: > > HUMMMMM: > GIF, JPEG>SVG, > Javascript, CSS> xslt, > HLINKs > XLinks, > TeX/LaTeX >MathML. > TeX/LaTeX> MathML. > Specific formats> CML. > HTML> XHTML Would be "W3C": GIF, JPEG>SVG, Javascript, CSS> xslt, HLINKs > XLinks, TeX/LaTeX >MathML. Specific formats> CML. (this is _not_ really from w3c) HTML> XHTML "World": XSLT> e4x SVG> Graphical-CSS, Canvas. Content MathML --> Semantic TeX, OpenMath? presentation-MathML --> CSS-Math (currently unpopular and mainly not explored as alternative) XHTML1.x, 2> HTML 5 > At least one assertion may be missing: > > "costs( $s and Time) to achieve functional benefit is the > criteria that will select the choice of tool by the implementer." > > One vast set of rules able to solve all user problems, will never find > consumer acceptance if a more limited set of rules is available to solve > the specific problem. > > The scope of most problems is smaller than the width of xml. > > > It seems to me that xml does not compete because it is designed to be > comprehensively complete. > Well, in almost all of examples above XML just is rejected because lacking completeness for real life problems. For instance, MathML prints very bad, then people return to TeX engines; CML is just for elementary chemistry then journals continue usign old specific files for chemical information; XSL-FO lacks adequate properties for online rendering then people choose CSS; XSLT is too complex and limited e.g. lacks supports for dynamical webpages then people prefer a XML version of Javascript, XHTML 2 mainly focused in w3c 'semantic vision' but ignoring some real needs for Web applications then devlopers launch HTML5, SVG is too complex, bloated, and presentational then this years graphical CSS draft proposed by Baron (Mozilla)... People wait small incremental changes over available _working_ technologies. Many w3c proposals are reinventing the wheel in an all-XML-metaphysical-vision. Part of the problem is also the lack of compatibility and guidance on the XML world. A couple of N different technologies could be substituted by a single _unified_ working all-in-one technology. Benefits of such one thing are giant! The problem is when technology-1 is XMLized in a way incompatible with technology-2 and that with 3 and so on. Then one recovers a XML version of the previous messy system and that provide little practical benefit to most of people. Take the case of links each spec use a different system How is possible most basic element of the web was treated in different ways by w3c groups. Users do not want play to the w3c WG internal wars, just want working results: working and if possible cheap. I, of course, am _not_ saying that w3c specifications are useless, i am _not_ saying that XML was useless, I am saying that ratios (achieved/waited) and (sucess/propaganda) are very low for XML doing small its presence on the visible web. > Thanks for the good work! > > sterling Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) 
|
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
|
|||||||||
