Lists Home |
Date Index |
> Were those strategic decisions strategic mistakes which need to be recognised
> as such and abandoned/rectified? Or is XSD/PSVI a far-sighted and
> well-thought-out innovation whose benefits are not yet adequately understood
> by the community of XML developers?
I don't think we need to go as far as knee-jerk "Infoset=good, PSVI-bad", much as
I love kneejerks. But similarly, W3C WGs must avoid "PSVI=good, Infoset=bad"
which is implicit in the "well you don't need to use the PSVI parts of our enormous
standard if you don't like them".
Instead, it is question of whether the baseline level of XML technology should be
about the size of XML (or Tim Bray's skunkworks XML 2.0) + XPath 1 or the size of
XML + XML Schemas + Xpath 2.
XML's entire premise was its modest size. It would be a mistake to throw that
away, and make PSVI the baseline.
Alternatively, the W3C could just stop calling PSVI-based technology "XML"
and establish a positive new brand and standards range for PSVI. I think that
would help everyone.