[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The "Extensible" buzzword (was RE: SchemaTA)
- From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>
- To: 'Dylan Walsh' <Dylan.Walsh@Kadius.Com>, email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:46:42 -0700
> From: Dylan Walsh [mailto:Dylan.Walsh@Kadius.Com]
> My own pet naming peeve is the use of "extensible" in
> acronyms, where I
> believe "XML" should be used. For example, "eXtensible Stylesheet
> Language". XSL isn't really all that "extensible", the "X"
> really refers
> to "XML". The other example is XHTML.
I agree with your sentiments. "Extensible" is overused (check out
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.shtml for one set of examples).
However, I'm not sure I agree with your examples. XSLT allows for extending
it's core language with extension elements and functions. XHTML allows for
extending the HTML syntax with additional XML constructs not defined by the
spec (through modularization). Both XSLT and XHTML provide explicit
mechanisms for extension, which seems to fit the definition of "extensible",