|
|
Re: [xml-dev] is XML complete?
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 06/11/2002 19:00:18 GMT Standard Time, simonstl@simonstl.com writes:
>>You must have been at those mushrooms again! :)
>No, I just take a slightly narrower view of what XML is.
Can you explain why linking and styling are "in" this narrower view and other things not?
Might this not be a fairly arbitrary definition of where the boundaries of XML should be drawn?
>>There is a ton of work ongoing on XQuery (and therefore also on XSLT
>>2.0 and XPath 2.0). And, if my guess is correct, they will pretty much
>>go straight on to add update functionality to XQuery.
>XQuery is a toolkit for working with XML, not part of XML itself. (The
>same can be said of XSLT, though XSLT was pretty clearly part of the
>original style project.)
There is the detail that it invents YAXDM - yet another XML Data Model.
That to me seems signficant.
If XML 1.0 had had a clear data model then we might not have the assortment of DOM, XPath 1.0, XML Infoset, PSVI, AABSABI and the XQuery data model. It would have made life a heck of a lot simpler to have a single, well-thought-out data model.
>Not to forget all the AABSABI stuff - Add A Bit Subtract A Bit Infoset
>stuff.
>
>And a minor thing called SOAP / Web Services ... WSDL ... with WSXL,
>WSIL etc coming up behind.
>
>Somehow I see infoglut being much more of a danger than boredom due to
>"completion".
None of that is particularly about XML, however.
AABSABI (or XML Infoset, or PSVI, if you prefer) seems to me to be key to the debate of what XML "is" or, maybe more precisely, what XML is being transmogrified into.
On reflection, don't you think it's an important issue?
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|