OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xml-dev] Has XML run its course?

I'm not combining them.  I have no problem 
discriminating an application languge from the
meta language.  There are those who are justiably 
afraid that there will be some legalistic binding 
through the infoSets, but so far, there isn't AFAIK. 

My point is that some people will take the rocks others 
consider worthless as these others rush for shinier 
rocks and make something of worth with them. 
The mistake is to think they shouldn't.  Then 
the mote is in the other eye.  I'm very comfortable 
with application languages competing for mindshare. 
It is why we have generalized markup:  options under 
minimum constraints.

Namespaces is the most controversial topic 
because it does alter the definition of XML 1.0 
quite directly and because it is underfined 
and it's implications not well-understood. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@CS.UCLA.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 3:11 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Has XML run its course?

On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> The smart people won't abandon XML.  They will take
> XML Schemas and learn to use them like a farmer builds a
> stone wall and marks grazing land from the vegetable
> garden.   Others will use XSLT to make meals of the
> produce and the meat.  Some, unable to stand the
> enclosures of the commons will go looking for
> more adventure and some ideal of freedom elsewhere.
> In the end, most will have most of what they want,
> but a few will go to their graves cursing the farmers,
> cursing the bankers and yearning for the good old
> days when they could sling a tag-stacking HTML parser
> over their backs and go huntin' grizz.

why are you combining xml and xml schemas -- people using XML does *not*
imply they will use XML Schemas.

XML Schemas, to the best of my knowledge, has been the most controversial
topic, so I think saying that XML implies XML Schema is not correct. I
think these are the mistakes we (especially the more knowledgeable and
experienced people) should try to avoid.