[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 2002-07-12 at 15:35, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Nor should an application be forbidden to tightly couple
> using XML.
Of course not.
> An application can't require this of
> of XML. The choice should be made based on the requirements
> of the application. So why the controversy over what is
> the most basic and easily understood aspects of markup
> and markup systems?
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be that well understood.
> It all comes down to one's interpretation of "What Is XML?"
> Those who religiously, politically, or ambitiously lump
> XML application frameworks into "requirements for XML"
> do a disservice and commit a technical blunder. Teaching
> this in the universities is an academic conceit.
>
> XML core is simply XML 1.0: FULL STOP. Not,
> XSLT, not XSD, not namespaces, not RELAX NG,
> not .NET, and certainly not SVG, XHTML, and so forth.
100% agreed.
> As long as that core remains untouched, all of the debates
> on loose and tight coupling, schemas, strong typing vs
> lexical and structural named types, are simply and
> only choices of the application engineer. While in
> the context of designing an application, it can be
> convenient to blur these distinctions, at the strictest
> levels of definition, the following hold:
>
> o Element != object
> o Attribute != field
> o Elements and attributes are not rows and columns
> o Namespaces are just flags
> o XML systems != The Web
> o The Web != The Internet
>
> XSLT is an application language. XHTML is an application
> language. SVG is an application language. .NET is an
> application framework. The Web is a system of systems
> for assigning, persisting and resolving identity properties
> to representations of entities known as resources.
Yep, but you need to be careful how you add layers on layers and
creating a dependency between XPath and type annotation is, IMO, a
complete disaster.
> These are easy ideas made complicated by the insistence
> that the WWW become an application framework evermore
> tightly bound to interlocking specifications to meet the
> requirements of blind interoperability for systems
> that identify and retrieve resource representations.
>
> Understand clearly that these are not requirements of XML;
> XML is an enabler for these requirements, not their source.
When have I said anything else?
>
> Do what you will with these, but the originator
> is responsible for selling ideas and systems, and
> the term "sell" is deliberate. Don't consider
> the work a "standard" until it is adopted as such,
> and then remember that the social behavior of adopting
> standards is predicated on willingness based on perceived
> value, not the source. Technical groupies are this
> century's most pathetic beings.
But don't consider that any organization can "own" ideas either and have
any way to force people in a direction they don't want to follow :-)
Eric
> len
>
--
See you in San Diego.
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/os2002/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
