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

Re: Semantics and the Web: An Awkward History

• From: Gareth Oakes <goakes@gpsl.co>
• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
• Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 23:59:03 +0000

Hi all,

I read some of the recent comments with interest as in my world the "XML project" has been a success. Just like PVC piping, TPS cable, and galvanised screws the XML is now a standard infrastructure. XML infrastructure enables platforms and applications that service user needs very effectively.

Sure, everyone stopped paying attention at XML 1.0 but that's OK. Sure it was overengineered, but that's OK. The fundamentals of structured content processing are well supported by XML and there is a vast array of available tooling (transformations, validations, etc.).

I would point to systems such as Paligo, LegisPro, Fonto, Xeditor, and Quark Publishing Platform as proof that you can "democratise XML", allowing non-technical users to work with XML documents without ever having to learn what an element, attribute, or entity is or does. All the benefits of structured content are available "out of the box" and the automation potential is fantastic.

 Just another viewpoint on this subject, hope it is of interest.

// Gareth Oakes
// VP Content Technologies, GPSL
// www.gpsl.co

On 14/9/21, 19:09, "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:

    The consensus that formed around XML in 1998 was an extremely rare event in the history of computing: one of the few times that the entire industry has converged on a single standard. It's much more normal and usual for there to be at least two competing standards, often one "formal" standard and one "de facto" or proprietary: e.g. ASCII vs EBCDIC, OSI vs SNA, OSI vs TCP/IP. 

    So I don't agree with the statement "customers demanding standards in an ecosystem of multiple commercial players has largely ceased to exist." Customers have always wanted a single standard but they have very rarely been offered it, and they have never had the collective clout to force the issue. Multiple standards have always been the norm, and XML as a single consensus standard is a historical aberration.

    And it was never going to last for ever. Given that XML is over-engineered for many of the tasks that people were using it for, other standards better suited to a subset of those tasks were always going to emerge.

    Nor is this something I get depressed about. The world needs to move forward. The only thing I get depressed about is when we seem unable to move forward from standards that are 50 years out of date, like C, or the untyped Unix/Windows style filesystem.

    Michael Kay
    Saxonica

    > On 14 Sep 2021, at 09:13, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 
    > On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 08:49, Marcus Reichardt <u123724@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 
    > <snip/>
    > 
    > IMO, XML is just fine as it is, it's not talked about much because it
    > does its job, and I'm not seeing anything that could replace it any
    > time soon, or even at all. That's because the world where standards
    > were defined based on broad consensus, academic canon, and customers
    > demanding standards in an ecosystem of multiple commercial players has
    > largely ceased to exist.
    > 
    > <snip/>
    > 
    > I wonder if others agree with this view? The demise of W3C? Surely not
    > reverting to the chaos of COTS software offerings in 101 'standards'?
    > 
    > I do hope your view is a minority Marcus.
    > 
    > regards
    > 
    > 
    > -- 
    > Dave Pawson
    > XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
    > Docbook FAQ.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Semantics and the Web: An Awkward History
    • From: Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie>

• References:
  • Re: Semantics and the Web: An Awkward History
    • From: Marcus Reichardt <u123724@gmail.com>
  • Re: Semantics and the Web: An Awkward History
    • From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
  • Re: Semantics and the Web: An Awkward History
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>