Lists Home |
Date Index |
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 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.
Technical blunder as it may be, there is no question that the existence
of the other bits and pieces can and will lead those not brave or
experienced enough into a morass of over-engineering.
Remember the "SGML is too hard" mantra of a few years ago? Despite the
protestations of those of us who were using SGML at the time, it caught
on like wildfire. Because it was true? No, because it was "the message".
Well the message now is that everything fits together, and that a tidy
implementation follows the sanctioned path. Of course the add-ons are
really optional, but how do new developers (or anyone else) know when to
stop or divert? Nobody ever gets fired for following the W3C...
Never mind what's right - it's more important to think about what the
developer community may be lead into believing. I'm with Simon - all is
Marcus Carr email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."