[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Fw: [xml-dev] Has XML run its course?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Ann Navarro <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:51:38 -0500
There is a problem of trying to shoehorn all of the
systems research out there into one system. We
do have coupling problems that lead to incoherence
in multi-vendor and open systems acquisitions.
One has to look at use cases, determine criticality, and choose
a system that meets the requirements. Picking XML is easy.
Choosing among the overlapping application languages is
harder. That is a buy oriented problem. The decision of
which language to implement is made harder by the overlaps
in the core specifications and the hidden assumptions,
the most famous being, what does a namespace URI point to
if anything? Specs churn, then the tools churn, and
we never close on a working model. We stay in experimental
mode and the results are hard to come by. For that reason,
we have a virtual one-browser system, and a monopoly that
while criticized widely, is doing a credible and necessary job.
From: Ann Navarro [mailto:email@example.com]
>From: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>Tim Nutman
>How many research, standards bodies, commercial and home "users" were
>in the creation of the HTML specifications? How does that number compare
>and the number of those involved in the creation of XML and XML-"thingy"
Apples and oranges. HTML was a single, non-extensible (at least by
definition) document. XML by design is a framework for other development
efforts. There should be no surprise that more people are involved in
creating XML specs -- that's what they're supposed to do.