[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: XML is _post_ OO
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Al B. Snell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:57:06 -0500
This and the examples Uche presents are
precisely why the ancients of SGML stayed
out of programming languages. There was even
an organizational separation at the ISO levels.
Charles was marvelously scrupulous about that
even when the youngsters around him (like me
and a few others who now pass for old guys)
were clamoring for it. Hungry for it. Ambitious
for it. He quietly held us under the water
until we relented or turned blue.
When we were doing the MID design, I passed
the first version (C++ in pointy brackets) to
Steve deRose. He sent back an interesting
critique that came down to "why code in
pointy brackets?". Later, Charles and
Yuri caught me outside the HyTime conference
hall in Vancouver to ask esssentially the
same question? It WAS doable; the MID
designs worked. The question was, what
did it bring to the standards table we
didn't already have, and would it be
anymore effective than what we had?
When HTML began to replicate the features
of the MID inside comments, I had to
wonder if it wasn't all simply "this
wins, that loses, who sez? who cares?"
and at the application layer, that is
essentially the case. Applications
But at the layer of the standard, it
is wise not to add functionality for
the advantage of one particular application
that makes it hard or expensive for
others to do their jobs. Eliminating
options without regard to the commmon
opportunity is usually a very bad practice.
XML, like it's parent, is smart ASCII.
Keep it that way. When building an
XML application, all bets are off
unless you claim to conform to another
standard or specification, say DOM.
Is XML post-OO? No. It is pre-LISP.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Al B. Snell [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:45 AM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: Eric Bohlman; Michael Brennan; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: XML is _post_ OO
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> However, the interface might be (and very often is)
> as simple as Import<->Export fields of hopefully
> structured data. Can one code smarter interfaces?
> Sure. Can one afford to do that often? No. So
> very often it comes down to, show me your names,
> descriptions, and field lengths, I'll show you
> mine. Whatever we determine is common, we exchange.
> Beyond that, the information loses or Mr Customer
> pays one of us to make adjustments.
Indeed; standards happen when commonly needed interfaces that really do
the same thing compete and a winner emerges, often aided by pressure from
a nice standards body or nasty vendor...
...but still standards happen. I am perplexed by people who say that
agreed interfaces cannot happen on the Internet.... read the RFCs! People
are not forced to conform, and many implementations add vendor extensions
and all, but unless the standard is broken or vendors get nasty, there is
usually interoperability as per the RFC - the vendor extensions don't