[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
The problem, Rick, is they sometimes do use those features in public specifications with a lot of reach. See GJXDM. Otherwise, yes: let the local requirements rule the choice and over time, some will converge as long as the environment remains stable. However, it might not. That is the challenge of the low energy transfer means as described: the superhighway keeps moving because the masses that create gravity wells do. (hmmm, that is a lot like the dormitory stairwells at Hogwarts.) The reason many complex standards didn't get traction is not because of complexity only but because of the mapping of complex feature sets to dynamic environments. If you look at the famous examples (HyTime/DSSSL, OSI, CORBA, etc.) in the context of the time in which they were attempted, you see not only are they hard to implement and understand, they are promoted at the time that the reach they have to make grows dramatically. Given the Long Tail effect in which only a few have the necessary background to choose wisely, the mean falls into a subtoptimum minima: mediocre. It isn't that worse is better or Internet Time means results must be fast, it means one has to sell to and implement for a thin but wide locale. Intelligence doesn't scale. The web is mediocre. As long as one thinks 'standard' equals 'universal', these spat continue just like a Highlander movie. When one begins to grasp the unavoidable nature of situation semantics and costs, one begins to take a navigational view over time and a changing landscape. It isn't a web of objects; it is a web of force vectors over object evolution. It isn't unpredictable; it is navigable where cost equals speed and the parametric commodity is time. len From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:rjelliffe@a...] The RELAX NG versus XSD competition is bogus, consequently treating one as the winner and one as the loser at this stage is bogus. They are both grammar languages, and in many cases you can substitute one for the other. In fact, it seems that people rarely use the features in one that are not also not in the other, at least for public schemas. See http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2006/04/reconciling_xsd_and_relax_ng. html for a reference to Expressiveness and Complexity of XML Schemas <http://alpha.uhasselt.be/%7Elucg5503/tods2006.pdf> by Martens, Neven, Schwentick and Jan Bex which has a lot of material of interest. (You might even interpret that survey as saying that people are *not* buying into the exotic parts of XSD. I'd expect the same of RELAX NG.) People using DTDs, XSD or RELAX NG are all buying into grammars, with all that entails. I know I have a much more XPath versus grammar viewpoint than many people, but I think grammars, whether DTD, XSD or RELAX NG, will play a decreasingly important part in document processing (perhaps XQuery/XLinq/XSLT2 will cause a momentary hump due to vendors trying to find markets for their shiny new tools) in the medium term.
|
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
|