Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 08:53:34AM -0500, Mike Champion wrote:
> More importantly, it will lower the barriers to entry for NEW XML users.
I have a hard time with taking this assertion as truth, unless you
expect them to rebuilt their tools from scratch and in that case I really
hope new XML users are not gonna go this way because it definitely doesn't
lower the barrier to reimplement.
> The "XML Revolution" is not won. In a couple of years the marketing people
> will be looking for the next Next Big Thing, the developers who had trusted
> the IDEs and wizards to hide XML weirdness from them will be debugging systems
> that broke when someone tried to deliver DocBook documents via SOAP (and
> screaming for blood) ,
I'm tempted to say that this example doesn't hold, you would need to
encapsulate <!DOCTYPE too. IMHO SOAP decided to allow only a subset of
XML-1.0 to be carried because as an *application* of XML they have the right
to subset the set of XML document they accept to handle. I don't see that
as a major reason to make XML match the intersection of what the major
applications accepts. Doing so is actually a very good way to have this
refactorization be helpful for only a tiny amount of the current XML base.
> and"disruptive innovators" will be offering
> "like XML ... only better" or "actually delivers what XML promised" alternatives.
Well you find those anyway, whatever the subset chosen.
> I'd say that the XML community should be anticipating, and trying to head
> off, this situation today rather than when it becomes a crisis.
It's management basics, yes. I understand the goal, I'm not convinced so
far with the argument that one should follow road A specifically. Actually
I'm still wondering if going any new direction makes real sense.
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
email@example.com | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/