xml-dev - Re: The failure to communicate XML - and its costs to e-business

[Matt Sergeant <matt@sergeant.org>]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 AndrewWatt2000@aol.com wrote:

> If XML ever was "simple", can it seriously be suggested that that remains 
> true after the addition of SMIL, XSLT, XPath, RDF and XHTML and the soon 
> emergence of SVG, XPointer, SMIL 2.0, SMIL Animation, CC/PP, Canonical XML, 
> XML Digital Signatures etc?

I find this like saying ASCII is not simple because you can write Perl in
it. Or shakespear. Vocabularies can be complex. Thats not to say that they
have to be, or that its a failing if they are. The same bricks could build
a cathedral or an office building.


> For example, the notion of a "root" (with or without some qualifying term) 
> appears in many XML-related Recommendations or drafts. Yet there is 
> significant inconsistency in the usage of terms between XML technologies 
> which inevitably leads to wasted development time and consequent (avoidable) 
> costs to e-businesses.

While I accept that the concept of the root of the document and the root
element are easily confused, I refuse to accept that there are vast
amounts of wasted development time lost due to this. Unless you have some
statistics you could point to.

> But other issues also arise. Not least is the sheer volume of material which 
> needs to be mastered.

I don't need to learn lisp so that I can say that I truly *know*
ASCII. Learn what you need to.

> XML on its own does, essentially, nothing. Let's add the approximately 90 
> pages of the XSLT Recommendation to express our XML as HTML or XHTML. Then we 
> can add the 500 pages of the XSL-FO draft if we want the potential advantages 
> of Web and paper output from the same source data. And if we want to 
> illustrate our pages with Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) images we can add 
> another 492 pages of reading. But, let's not forget that SVG has dependencies 
> on Cascading StyleSheets, CSS, has a variant Document Object Model, and is 
> dependent on the SMIL Animation drafts for animation, which in turn has 
> dependencies on the SMIL 1.0 Recommendation and the SMIL 2.0 Working Draft.
> 
> Now, just who was it that claimed that XML was "simple"?

How many HTML "developers" do you know who have read the HTML
specification and the SGML specification, and the HTTP specification, and
the CSS 1 and 2 specifications? Am I missing your point? As Paul so
eloquently put it, these are developers specs. Eventually we will have
tools to create these things. You'd have to be fairly barmy to write SVG
by hand these days (unless you're also the kind who likes to hand-write
postscript).

> It is sometimes suggested that W3C documents target only implementors. When, 
> as XML technologies are increasingly adopted by e-businesses, the health or 
> survival of a business depends on efficiency online ... a survival which may 
> depend on savvy usage of XML technologies ... a wider, wiser more 
> business-orientated approach is needed.

I don't like the sound of this...

> Communication, at all levels, needs to be improved. For example:
> 
> 1. Improve the expression of concepts in W3C documents. Take steps to improve 
> accessibility for those not in the current elite.

Thats what books and articles and working tools are for. I don't see a
movement to "dumb down" the Internet RFC process so that businesses can
understand them. Your boss can use email and send attachments over the
internet, but he didn't have to delve into the details of RFC 1341.

> 2. Improve the integration between W3C activities

Thats a worthy goal.

> 3. Move forward from hype about XML technologies to realistic appraisal of 
> strengths and weaknesses

I don't see the W3C putting about this hype. So maybe we need to address
more exactly who *is* putting about the hype. I think its the tools
vendors, which is nothing unusual for them.

> 4. Initiate remedial action to improve communication of past W3C documents
> 
> I am aware that W3C has begun to take steps in at least some of these 
> directions. The issues are too important for tentative, partially funded 
> initiatives, to suffice.
> 
> XML technologies are too important to be allowed to be confined to an elite 
> ghetto, as happened to SGML. Let's all work together to understand, 
> communicate and apply the enormous potential of XML technologies and assist 
> the W3C to lead the Web to its full potential.

I think we're already a long way past the "elite ghetto".

Cheers,

-- 
<Matt/>

** Director and CTO **
**  AxKit.com Ltd   **  ** XML Application Serving **
** http://axkit.org **  ** XSLT, XPathScript, XSP  **
**     Personal Web Site: http://sergeant.org/     **