[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: SAX-ext Attribute + Entity Parsing
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Justin Couch <email@example.com>, XML-Dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:03:58 -0600
Be fair, Justin:
1. The X3D-Schema can be changed. The
DTD needs to be dumped sooner or later.
Clean diagrams do not of necessity create
clean object designs.
2. They use parameter entities because
the XHTMLers told them that was the
"standard" approach to modularization
and for some years, it has been. There
are other means but it was The SGML Way
and people are hung up on it. This
urge to merge with the W3C can be
helpful or hurtful, but it forces them
to sync to the XHTML development, itself
hobbled by its own history.
3. Both Microstation and Autodesk are
implementations, a bit long in the tooth,
and X3D should not be hobbled by that. If
it is, then it is not VRML200x but VRML 0.5.
It is time for X3D to move on to
XML Schemas. The challenger to X3D is
not VRML or Microstation and Autodesk,
but RM3D and the proprietary solutions for Web3D.
XML apps derive their strength from their
combination with other XML languages. X3D
is "hideously complex" because:
1. It used parameter entities to do the job
of the abstract object model of VRML97 (nodes and fields).
2. It attempted to keep fields as attributes
and nodes as elements refusing to recognize
the mismatch of these in the data model. The
underpowering of DTDs was not well-understood.
3. The X3D designers need to understand namespace
based modularization. That puts X3D
back in the mainstream of XML development.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h