[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
That could be so. I suspect that the system.xml library
would be where the programmer has to be very concerned.
XML, after all, is the metalanguage for the application
languages and there can be an infinite variety of these.
They may overlap each other in functionality, but that
is what one expects, not a "thou shalt use because our
group says so" kind of environment which is what the
W3C wonks would have us believe.
MS supports the application developer. The developer
supports the application. To me, that is as far as
XML can take us before the problem moves to the
interpretive community. Like application languages,
there can be an infinite variety of these.
Like Muensch, I'm waiting to hear about the clients
for XDocs. One problem with being an MSThrall is
the relentless innovation of Microsoft. It is very
difficult to plan for future developments if the
story keeps changing. We have to build our clients
and servers and then cost them out over at least
half to three quarters of a decade.
For example, how would XDocs
relate to Visual tools for database development?
The XML is easy; replacing the implemented libraries
is tough. How will XDocs works with C#, the system.xml
lib, etc., etc.?
Word is already an HTML browser. That sort of integration
is done. It is the Visual forms systems that have to
worry. We've heard about smart clients, yadda yadda, but
at the end of the day, we have to know what to do with
the database forms. The integration story is key.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
clbullar@ingr.com (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>The main point of competition is now not in
>the markup languages, but in the system
>libraries from which we build the components.
>Most of us build software; XML tag design
>is an incidental activity.
That's an interesting take, and from my perspective that's a lot of the
problem. Convincing software developers that information structures
matter as much as their processing structures is awfully damn difficult.
As a result, we've found information structures more and more tightly
bound to structures for processing. Once companies who focus was on
programming noticed this stuff, they exerted a lot of energy in making
XML conform to their needs, rather than considering the prospect of
designing software around markup.
I don't expect Microsoft to develop any sudden interest in Web-oriented
markup languages. Help on that front will need to come from a different
culture.
|
