Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Evans [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 12:49 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [xml-dev] No to RELAX-NG (for now)
> The big problem with XML is that these floating standards never
> get out of committee.
Yes, but they take forever to get out of committee because the committees
try to do too much at once on the basis of ideas that are not well-tested in
> Nobody wants to commit to the 'new thing' because at least the 'old
> thing' is stable.
The history of technology is littered with 'new things' that failed the test
of time. Remember the "new economy"?
> I have edited schemas with XML Spy. No problem. I understand them.
> It was a bit like learning a new language, but still a very
> mild experience.
Uhh, as we hear rather regularly on this list, schemas/instances that work
fine in one implmentation have a tendency to not interoperate with other
implementations. Is this the fault of the tools, validator implementations,
or the specs.... not yet determined.
> I grant that RELAX NG may be better. Frankly, I've never heard of it
> until now. I looked at the web sites. Ho hum is my impression --
> more XML tweaking when what the world needs is a stable XML standard.
"Stable standards" are both a blessing and a curse. A blessing when the
underlying technology is stable, a curse when premature standardization
locks us in to an inferior technology for years. VHS is an oft-cited
example; I would point to Windows -- the industry has been aided by a
"standard" operating system, but would have been better off if the
"standard" had survived some more competition and cross-fertilization with
Mac and Unix for a few years before it achieved dominance.
The way forward seems clear to me: RELY on the stable old things, EXPERIMENT
with the shiny new things, and let competition and experience turn the shiny
new things into stable reliable things.