[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Simon,
Simon said:
I think that's completely the wrong answer, and precisely the path that
has
led us to such a dire position.
My point is that adding shiny new features to the overall notion of XML,
whether or not they happen to help developers, has produced grotesque
bloat
and a set of tools that now makes SGML look svelte.
Didier replies:
I agree that SGML now seems svelte compared to XML since SGML restricted
its domain to text encoding (used mainly to encode knowledge). I cannot
say that XML got bloated because of the needs of developers because most
of the XML stuff is related to its serialized format and not to the
infoset. The developers are interacting with the infoset. The only
infoset's interface developers have is the DOM.
Simon said:
I would much rather abandon the effort to address such needs generically
with XML by creating new "XML" tools and standards and leave developers
to
solve their information exchange problems using local solutions.
Didier replies:
It is possible today to do so. However big money and huge marketing will
always set the trend and you know who gets money and set the trend.
There is little we can do against that except choose for ourselves the
kind of technology we want. Will that be the same of the mainstream? I
doubt, again, big money set the trend for the mainstream.
Simon said:
Stop at the parser. Let communities with needs beyond the parser build
their own toolsets, and _don't call it XML_.
Didier replies:
As a minimal set of tools I agree. Will this be the best solution for
people having to be productive? I doubt. Are there better ways to do
things? Certainly. Do we need all the actual syntaxic complexity to
achieve that goal? Not necessarily.
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
