Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>, email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:56:34 -0500
Yes. I concur. The chasm between the typically
fixed structures common to WYSIWYG, essentially, property
editors, and the array of semi-programmatic constructs
required to work with declarative-quasi-procedural
languages is large. And knowing your background,
I am aware just how hard you and your former company
worked to bridge that chasm. Even for DTDs which are
relatively simple compared to the bewildering constructs
of the XML family of specs, it was a tough nut to crack.
So yes, without access to the language format, it is hard
to do serious work. OTOH, I don't think for experienced
practicioners this is in question. Think of how many generations
of rapid development tools have come and gone, how many SGML
editors, etc., and in the end, we are still using PFE or see
the native language editors in the RAD tools. Caveat vendor.
My intuition is that until we get the fully featured
design suites promised from the large XML vendors, we
will have a piece meal debug environment. I have
recently sat in with several to-the-metal programmers
who are trying to apply XSL, XSLT, and reasonably simple
1. They know too much to live. (Wouldn't make it past
the first round of Survivor). They have been lobotomized
by the Visual tool sets and the younger ones who don't remember
C and hand edited make files are struggling.
2. They laugh when I suggest that using
Alerts and MessageBoxes might be worthy. I go back
three days later and guess what.... Boxes galore.
3. The concepts and application of namespaces comes hard.
It defies what they are used to and the implementations
do things they hate (eg, carrying
forward the namespace into the output where they didn't
expect to see it having become convinced they only
put the xmlns= att for validation).
This is still bleeding edge tech. The challenge to create
really comprehensive robust building tools is still unmet
but I have the same hope as when I saw N&F demoed in Atlanta
some years ago. Some of the papers from MS of late on the
BizTalk orchestration editors are fascinating. I didn't
think I would ever see the CreateRFQ, ReplyQ sorts of
enterprise management tools. Gad! The lunatic fringe
has been validated by a company once considered their
mortal enemies. How things change!
DTDs like paper will go away when something as robust and
easy to use is provided. Until then, we live in a mixed
environment. The convictions of the W3C members are not
convincing, evidentiary, or compelling. That Schemas
are needed is not in doubt. That we will abandon DTDs
anytime soon is. Like HTML, there is too much legacy to lose
the form therefore compatibility and bloat will be the price of
evolution, same as it ever was.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: G. Ken Holman [mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com]
Personally, I don't, which is why I'm anxious to see what Whitehill offers
to see the way they support their claims. It is exciting to think these
tools are on their way.