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] loosely and tightly coupled systems and type annotation

[ 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 :-)


> len
See you in San Diego.
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema


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

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