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