xml-dev - Re: Not so stupid (was re: More Stupid XML Articles)

[Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@qub.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: David Megginson <david@megginson.com>


> Our fault, not his.

Exactly.

> When XML came out 2 and a half years ago, XML's promoters (W3C and
> otherwise) made a Faustian bargain -- promote XML as the
> next-generation of HTML (which is plainly misleading, but very
> interesting) rather as than a low-level layer for serializing tree
> structures in clear text (which is accurate, but boring as hell).

Exactly.

When W3C wil tell the truth? I mean that XML is
for developers, not for users. ;-) Oh.. sorry ...

Another source of confusion is constant positioning
"XSL is a client-side stuff".

I think it was better to start positioning XSLT as
a prototype of the possible answer W3C has to:

<q>
There are no universal vocabularies, so each XML promoter just does things its own way.
"Our way is the best!" The next company over, of course, is doing XML differently. For a
large company that subscribed to the methodology of company A and spent millions of
dollars to do so, it will be frustrating when, for some unknown reason, the company B
approach becomes universal and a true standard. Nobody knows what to do about this.
</q>

I mean XSLT is the only working tool which somehow allows
simplification of the conversions from schema A to schema B,
to connect those poor large companies.

Also Dvorak is really confuzed with XSLT and XSL :

<q>
XSLT means Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations. This amounts to a conversion
mechanism that is predefined so that various media can adapt the XML Web page and view it
exactly as it was created on competing browsers.
</q>

He talks about problem domain of XSL FO, but is using
XSLT. A bit funny. But who can blame Dvorak?
First there was W3C XSL hype, then there was
MS IE XSL hype, then there was XSL split e t.c. e t.c.
XSL FO is driven in ... well ... differently than XSLT.
For a very long time I'm constantly explaining to
almost every developer who occasionaly visits me,
what is that XSL/T/FO about and what is the difference.
I'm in the middle of Silicon Valley... Maybe this place
has especial kind of developers? Or maybe XSL is
not positioned properly ?

Dvorak is not a developer.

> The HTML and Web angle gave (and still give) us a lot of positive
> media exposure, but we have to pay for it sooner or later.  Every
> writer cannot be an XML specialist, and we can hardly blame them --
> even someone as well-known as Dvorak -- for throwing some of the
> misleading information back in our faces.

Yes and yes. To understand XML components ( difference between
XSLT and XSL FO,  for example ) somebody should constantly do
relatively deep research.

> I mean, let's be realistic -- was anyone going to start building a new
> Web with XML and XSL stylesheets, when designers cannot even get their
> minds around HTML+CSS?  If my mother wants to put up a Web page for
> her church, is she going to bother with XML (unless her HTML editor
> happens to write XHTML without her knowledge)?

Right! Let's be realistic! XML is for developers ( who will be writing
that HTML Editor, for example ).

> Were merchants really going to start posting their catalogues in XML
> just so that customers
> could use intelligent search engines to find that someone else sells
> the same blue jeans for $10 less?

Frankly, I don't think merchants will provide such a support.
Currently they are fighting with each-other because of
one-click 'inventions'. Why merchants will do something
different only because of XML ?

Those who need open and scalable dataflows will use XML.
Those who need open and scalable dataflows are developers
and only developers.

Rgds.Paul.