[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Uche,
>
> I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Certainly I agree wholeheartedly
> with your points 1) and 2). At the same time, I am afraid that we are
> confusing the fact that a whole array of specs from the W3C are unsatisfying
> with the realities of what is needed for XML moving forward. I don't think
> it is coincidence that the features that you postulate for "successful XML"
> happen to be more or less the sum total of all the decent XML-related specs
> to come out of the W3C. What, no linking? Is that because we don't need
> linking, or because the linking spec is broken?
You do touch on a valid nuance. My list is a mix of what is needed for "core" XML and what has been produced that has been well done.
I am more likely to defer to the judgment of others on XLink. Personally I'm not entirely sure it's needed at the core, or that it is well done. My experience with it has been pleasant enough, but I haven't put it to the sort of stern test as I have XML, XPath and XSLT.
> Of course, it's easy to say that "that's what developers are actually
> using", but isn't that a self-fulfilling prophesy? If the spec is no good,
> there's a good chance that people are not going to use it (at least not
> successfully).
Part of my mind thinks this may be so, but my more sceptical side worries that if the hype machine of XML happens to fix on any technology, it gets established regardless of its merits.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One (San Jose, Boston): http://www.xmlconference.com/
DAML Reference - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/05/01/damlref.html
RDF Query using Versa - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think10/index.html
XML, The Model Driven Architecture, and RDF @ XML Europe - http://www.xmleurope.com/2002/kttrack.asp#themodel
|
