Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: James Robertson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:25:40 +1000
At 05:05 18/08/1998 , Sean Mc grath wrote:
| >Simon St.Laurent writes:
| > > Still, could somebody slow this stuff down so that XML can have a
| > > tiny chance to grow? We're not even at the first round of browser
| > > implementations and already it looks like XML is attempting
| > > self-immolation at the shrine of complexity. The specs are doing
| > > too many things in too many places.
| [David Megginson]
| >This is progress: it took SGML over a decade to get this complicated.
| I share Simon St. Laurents concern that namespaces, schemas etc. are
| getting rather hairy. I think there is a possibility that the
| sleek Dolphin that is XML might begin to morph into a Duck Billed
| XML came about in a remarkably short period of time and yet exhibits
| substantial "beauty" in its simplicity. The reason for this goes deeper
| than the fact that some great minds designed it -- XML is the result of
| over a *decade* of experience with SGML. Some good things in SGML were
| dropped, some good things were retained, but all the while, the decisions
| were based on rubber-on-the-road *experience*.
| By contast, namespaces, schemas etc. are very, very new to SGML/XML.
| There is no decade of directly relevant, collective wisdom on which
| the great minds designing them can draw.
I apologise in advance for the low information content of
this message. It's just that I've been lurking on this list
for a while now, while keeping busy implementing practical
SGML solutions ... and I think I've reached the "straw that
broke the camel's back".
I think the whole XML/XSL/XML-Data/etc approach is reaching
crisis time --- it's killing itself before it has even
grown from infancy.
I have just read the comments regarding the recently-released
XSL spec, and frankly I am horrified by the use of another
grammar that is not XML!
This comes hard on the heels of the namespace spec, which has
not been well received in a number of areas.
Now I have been in the SGML field for a number of years,
but frankly, I find many of the discussions on this list
esoteric to say the least. I don't have time to read all
of these increasingly-complex specs, and I'm in the
So I ask: what happened to XML being simple?
Or to put it another way: if I have to support namespaces,
XSL, XML-Data (and more) in order to do anything,
I'm going back to SGML --- it's simpler!
For heaven's sake W3C, stop releasing specs.
I vote for withdrawing all the latest specs, and placing
them in a "for discussion" state. We can then get back
to them when we have a year's experience under our belt.
Instead, lets pour all our efforts into releasing XML-aware
software. Make it a standard first before aiming for the
Again, apologies for the rant. However, it's a worry when
even propeller-heads in the SGML industry like me feel like
they're falling behind ...
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
"Beyond the Idea"
ACN 081 019 623
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)