[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: SAX Filters for Namespace Processing
- From: Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 12:57:55 -0400
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> On 05 Aug 2001 11:46:49 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > Of course the W3C and other organizations involved with XML
> such as OASIS do
> > have some academic ties, yet these organizations are hardly what I would
> > call primarily academic, rather trade consortia. Its a bunch of
> > who are suposedly responding to customer needs who have come up with the
> > family of XML specifications. Indeed when academics have been
> involved, it
> > seems that _generally_ less rather than more complexity is the result.
> I suspect Tom may not be using the word "academic" here to mean
> "university-affiliated teachers", but rather in a more general sense.
> Some folks refer to it as the "too damn smart" problem, where smart
> people assume that because they can make a solution work, other people
> can too.
I read that thread, and am sympathetic to the issue, yet don't think the
problem is one of being "too smart", rather "too many cooks spoil the pot".
XML currently suffers from the kitchen sink problem. The companies who
participate in the consortia feel the need to send reps to every
specification group that they think might be meaningful, and expect to see
every widget they might need for their own proprietary product thrown in in
exchange for their $$$ dues.
Contrast XML Schema and RELAXNG. It isn't an issue of intelligence, rather
an issue of numbers of participants. I submit that RELAXNG is simpler
precisely for the reason that _less people_ are involved, not that those
involved are less "smart". It the same as the old adage of a failing
software project -- the absolutely worst thing you can do is send a whole
bunch of new developers in to 'speed up' the results.
In technology :-) smaller _is_ better.