OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Painful USA Today article (was RE: [xml-dev] ANN: RESTTuto

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

On 21 May 2002 at 15:39, Betty Harvey wrote:
> I find it interesting that one of the original design goals of XML was:
>  "The number of optional features is to be kept to an absolute minimum."
This continues to remain true (for XML syntax, anyway).  The Second 
Edition consisted of corrections to the original spec - no new 
functionality (optional features) were added.

Applications of XML syntax (e.g. XSD) are beyond the scope of the 10 
origial design goals.
> However, in order for a vendor
> to supply a validating parser to the general population, the software has
> to support DTDs, W3C Schema, RELAX NG, XDR, and who knows what when all
> is said and done.

It really depends on the user.  For exmple, if I am not planning to 
implement anyhing other than DTDs, parsers that support XSD are not 
needed/considered.  (BTW - are any vendors building XDR parsers at 
this point?)

One can also focus on a single schema language - for example, I can 
write a RNG schema that can be converted into XSD (although the 
reverse is certainly not true).  I can also convert my DTDs into RNG, 
allowing me to do most of my work in RNG.  (I'm a bit biased here 
since RNG is, imho, a simple, yet powerful schema language that is 
easy to learn - much like XML itself).

> If a vendor wants to provide e-commerce XML transport they have to support
> SOAP, ebXML TRP, now REST.

Yes, but none of these are XML - they are (like RNG) an application 
of the XML syntax to application-level protocols (REST is not a 
protocol - its an architectural style).  

Query: there is nothing in the REST architectural style that requires 
the use of XML -can someone clarify this for me?  

> The XML specification is 4 years old and vendors are still having a
> difficult time betting on which specifications to put their development
> $ in.  No matter what they decide it is a gamble.  They can't support
> everything.

Again, the XML spec itself is quite stable and mature, fairly simple 
to learn and use.  Its only when we start mucking about with XSD, XML-
based protocols and industry "standards" (aka applications of XML) 
that we stray from the original 10 design goals.

> XML has so much promise in so many areas.  From my personal perspective I
> am seeing the demand for XML dwindling.  Some of it may be because of the
> economy but I believe a lot of it is because of the confusion around the
> competing specifications.  Organizations that were seriously thinking
> about starting XML projects have taken a 'wait and see' attitude.

Perhaps one of the missions of the New XML group [1] can be to better 
clarify the public's perception of what is XML and what is merely an 
application of XML syntax.


[1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newxmlgroup/


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS