RE: [xml-dev] XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups

["Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lyon [mailto:david@globaltradedesk.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 12:50 AM
> To: Jeff Greif; david@globaltradedesk.com; Bullard, Claude L (Len);
> xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups
> 

[usual disclaimer applies even more than usual!]


> I'm particularly interested in collecting a list of issues 
> with the XML 1.0 specifications as they apply to the practical world and
then 
> translating these into something more positive. It may be that XML 2.0 
> might be bigger and better, or it may be that it's smaller, faster and
more 
> succinct. 

My impression is that the W3C thinks of XML1.0 + namespaces + xml:base, with
PIs sortof deprecated and MAYBE including XSDL, as the moral equivalent of
XML 2.0 

One fact that is seldom noted is that SOAP 1.1, and (currently) SOAP 1.2
implicitly define a subset of XML 1.0 ( no DTDs or PIs), but with namespace
support and (perhaps in 1.2) xml:base support required.  Without a DTD, you
can't define most of the things that cause people grief in the practical
world.

> That's up to us where we all wish to take it.

Here's a concrete idea:  sort of an XML Wikipedia-like
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?HomePage open-content effort to document
and explain the parts of the XML Family that people find truly useful in
real life.  I'm not sure if there is a way of keeping the focus on what
people actually use rather than fun stuff that people think about or play
with [Hmmm ... the Wikipedians say that they really don't have as big a
problem with cranks and zealots as one might expect ...].

Anyway, I don't really know much about WikiWiki or other open content
projects or the technology behind them.  I do believe that it is EXTREMELY
unlikely that the W3C would take on the task of refactoring XML based on
what works in the practical world; the W3C tries to operate on the basis of
consensus among its members, and it's much easier to get consensus on doing
"A and B" than choosing between "A or B". (Not to mention the fact that a
BigCo will not take kindly to a spec that deprecates a feature they have
invested heavily in supporting).  I can at least hope that some sort of
natural selection process would make a an open content XMLipedia focused on
what people really know and care about; the bleeding edge stuff will be
flagged with enough questions, comments, and revisions so that the
boundaries of "what really works" will be apparent to the reader.

Does anyone think such an idea makes sense?  Is the "Wiki paradigm" really
worth latching on to? If so, how does one move forward ... I guess this
could be grafted on to Wikipedia itself ... On the other hand, we really
should eat our own dogfood and use XML. I have the premonition that Dave
Winer will tell me that some combination of OPL and RSS (+XML-RPC?) would do
what I envision better than Wiki does ....

Thoughts?