Lists Home |
Date Index |
1. Erik was very involved in work that lead up to
the development of XML. He may be sharp tongued
but he is also sharp witted. I can filter the passion
because he does have the code cred.
2. The W3C IS listening to those who want to redesign
XML. Pay attention to the subset arguments because this
is being debated. The SOAP constituency has it's position
and the well-formedness + xml: types arguments over
validity are being taken seriously.
3. Clark carries quite a bit of weight obviously because
he backs up proposals with running code quickly.
They aren't listening to all but they are listening
to some, and that means the fork in the baked pie
can become a fork in the code. One's interests should
track accordingly. What SGMLers learned from the XML
experience if nothing else is the need to pay
close attention to the voices of dissent.
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Well, we are on the same side of the fence. SML-DEV removed attributes with
> Minimal-XML (aka SML) and an splinter group of SML-DEV went on in pursuit of
> YML with structured attributes. Unfortunately, W3C is an old school bus,
> without reverse gear nor breaks, hurling down the road. We flapped our
> wings but bus went whizzing by. I am sure the bus driver will tell us
> someday what lies at the end of that road just as he has done with URI...
Man, the sky is always falling around here, isn't it? <snip />
So I for one am very glad that the W3C has not listened to all the earnest
voices of those who want to remake XML according to some preference, however
rationally held. I'll be satisfied if the W3C just does a better job of
building systems on top of XML that exhibited better coupling and cohesion. I
think this can be done without a redesign of XML itself.