[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
It is not well understood because it is being
misrepresented in academic settings, articles,
conference papers, and on the lists. XML is
tossed around as a term where the system
frameworks, the application languages and the
XML 1.0 specification are treated as if they
were one thing, borne of the W3C and to be
followed because of the hegemony of the W3C.
This is seriously nuts.
<btw>I know you know these things. We're
on the same soapbox.</btw>
Organizations do have ways to enforce these
things. Trademark ownership, interlocking
specifications within and among organizations,
power of the press, power of the procurement
agencies, power of local management, power of
individual application requirements, all of
these and more are forces. The trick in this
is to understand when the use of force is
necessary and when it is based on superstitions.
The first and most vital understanding is to
know that the only choice removed from the
table by the greatest number of agreeing
parties is that XML 1.0 is core. Everything
after that is a separate negotiation of
requirements to be applied to individual
works. Layers are options chosen to get a
certain job done. Without a clear requirement
for the job, the layering will be ad hoc
and ad hoc layering is fertile for superstitious
nonsense, gold plated deliverables and the
rest of the complexifying, resource draining,
brain numbing overkill of XML system specs.
We need layers, and we have them. We seem
hellbent on making more. We should be sure
when and for what we need them. We should
understand why XML Query wants strong types
and know how to apply these to databases.
We should understand that not all applications
of XSLT and certainly XML require strongly
typed databases. This isn't hard stuff.
As far as I am concerned, XML Query should
have them. XSLT should not as long as it
is also understood that XSLT will not be a
query language for these.
Otherwise, have at.
len
From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@dyomedea.com]
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
|
