[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Failed XML standards
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Simon St.Laurent > <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote > >> A this point, personally, I'd drop coverage of XLink and XPointer. A >> paragraph seems reasonable. >> >> XInclude does get use in back-end processing, so I'd leave it in, most >> likely - at least as a sidebar in the entity processing section. It doesn't >> require a huge amount of space to explain in any case. >> > > Sounds about right, though XInclude references XPointer so it's hard > to really say. I think this is a bit arse-ended: even apart from the dubious idea that we should consider a standard successful only if it sells books or achieves ubiquity in platforms (rather than, say, a standard being successful if it can be used to solve some problems well.) Let me put it like this: one of the original goals of XML was "The number of optional features in XML is to be kept to the absolute minimum, ideally zero." This was because the highly parameterized approach that SGML took was not appropriate, for various reasons: one of which was that if there were optional features, you could not be guaranteed that the recipient could handle your document. And so what happened after that? A stream of piddly little standards for optional things: XBase, XInclude, xml:id. And what is the result? It is impractical to rely on them: or, at least, they don't relieve the developer of any decision making or programming, since the developer has to enable them or program for them on a case-by-case basis. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
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
|