[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The tragedy of the commons
- From: Sean McGrath <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 08:52:07 +0100
[Jeff Lowery <email@example.com>]
>I guess what I'm saying is that we need a formal categorization and
>recognition of the various domains XML operates in, and what their
>requirements are. Then we can sit down and map them out, and address the
>overlap. If there appears to be a consensus agreement on certain features,
>then they are "core" or "common".
I have long argued that WF XML with some best practices advise (such
as we synthesised into Common XML over on SML dev) is
the core of that core.
Most of the trouble starts above WF XML, when you throw
validating XML parsers, DTDs etc. into the mix, the Fuchian notion
of Cartersian Products kicks in. We see optional
behaviour heaped on implementation-specific idiom, heaped
on vendor-specifc extension to the detriment of XML's much
WF XML. That is the stuff that works. All else is a lot less
interoperable than the marketing folks would like you
I say this (again!): give the idea of layering stuff on top of WF XML
a chance. An alternative to the brain-puree caused by
Common WF XML +
Sane Namespaces +
Am I the only lunatic in the asylum?
Ark! Mumble, sputter, giggle, he he he he he....
Featured speaker at Geek Cruises' XML Excursion '02