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

Re: Convention versus standard

• From: Micah Dubinko <Micah.Dubinko@m...>
• To: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:47:09 -0700

In many cases, standards are in opposition to conventions, if not common
sense.

One example: some in the Namespaces posse insist against pre-defined
prefixes (other than 'xml'). But quite a few programmers expect certain
things to be predefined, like 'html' in the first few IE releases subsequent
to REC-xml-names.

Over time the pressure for predefined (or at least predeclared) names has
come back around to affect standards, such as XQuery predeclaring 'xs',
'xsi', 'fn', etc.

-m

On 7/19/08 9:43 AM, "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...> wrote:

> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> The dictionary defines the word "convention" as this:
> 
> 
>     Convention: A rule, method, or practice
>                 established by usage; custom
> 
> 
> For example, by convention street signs in the U.S. are placed at
> street corners, we expect to find them by looking up, not down, and we
> expect them to be horizontal, not vertical.  The benefits of this
> convention are:
> 
>    - we can locate street signs quickly,
>      with a minimum of effort
>    - their appearance makes it easy to
>      distinguish them from everything else
> 
> Another example: by convention books have table of contents that occur
> somewhere in the first few pages, page numbers are somewhere in the
> margins, and they will look like a table of contents and page numbers.
> 
> The dictionary defines the word "standard" as this:
> 
> 
>     Standard: Something considered by an authority
>               or by general consent as a basis of
>               comparison
> 
> 
> For example, the XML specification is a standard.  It requires, for
> instance, every XML document to have a root element.
> 
> I observe a couple differences between conventions and standards:
> 
>     1. Using a convention is advisable, but not required.
>        The things listed in a standard are required.
> 
>     2. Conventions are the product of a bottom-up, grassroots
>        evolution.  Standards are generated top-down by an
>        authority.
> 
> 
> QUESTIONS
> 
> What conventions have formed in the XML community?  Are there any
> conventions that have become universally accepted?  Are there
> conventions that have been adopted only within a community?
> 
> Conventions typically evolve over time.  Do you anticipate an evolution
> of conventions within the XML community?
> 
> /Roger
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
> 
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Convention versus standard
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>

• References:
  • Convention versus standard
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>