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

[David Lyon <david@globaltradedesk.com>]

Mike,

> 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

Maybe that's right. 

And you raise a lot of other very valid points. I'm going to add your 
suggestions to my XML 2.0 list if that's ok with you.

David Lyon


On Sunday 14 October 2001 05:36, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > -----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?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>