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

[Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>]

> c) "XML" as XML 1.0 + namespaces + schemas + RDF + xml:base + PSVI +
> godknowswhat

It is always amusing to travel to a meeting without internet access for a
few days. If anyone were actually able to produce a usable (c), they ought
be nominated for some type of award. From my perspective I see deepening
divides between various W3C activities such as RDF/Semantic Web and XML.

At one point I thought it would be a good idea to try and make all this
XML/Web related specifications work together. Recently I see this task as
somewhat hopeless particularly for reasons that the RDF/Semantic Web folks
are having a hard enough time trying to make RDF work on its own without
worrying about absolute compatibility with every W3C XML specification. (and
frankly don't see the need to commit to angle bracket syntax -- hence the
rise of Tim Berners-Lee's N3 RDF syntax). For _example_, RDF is deeply
committed to labelling everything with URIs, while XML Schema is deeply
committed to labelling everything with QNames, since there is no universally
agreed upon way to convert QNames to URIs and vis versa.

That is what ought to be a relatively easy problem without a good solution.
There are many much more difficult problems which people have yet to delve
into -- this is to say, since we cannot agree on "universal syntax" what
point is there about even thinking about "universal semantics".

Has XML run its course? Hardly, we've been quibbling for several years on
the easy problems and are just started getting any real work done. Is there
still a purpose for the W3C -- certainly, but just don't try to see it as
the UW3C (Universal World Wide Web Consortium). Rather see it as a group
that makes recommendations, and see these recommendations for what they are.
Realize that other entities may also make recommendations and make your
choices.

I guess if y'all were looking for some sort of prepackaged universally
interoperable web, y'all will be disappointed. On the other hand, we _do_
have good tools with which to communicate and practical people _can_ get
real work done - today. For people that like choice, fragmentation can be a
very good thing.

Jonathan