OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] SML: Second Try

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:50:19 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) 
<clbullar@ingr.com> wrote:

> The rest of what you are saying is more of the same:  fear of the wild. 
> That is, if we don't make an official subset, subsets will grow willy- 
> nilly.

Well, yeah. More or less.  See below.

> So?  Are we here to protect a "brand name" or to ensure that XML 1.0, 
> 1.1, are inclusive?

I guess I'm suggesting that XML not go the way of SQL, which (AFAIK from 
the very interesting XML databases town hall at XML 2002) seemed to value 
inclusiveness at the expense of coherence and interoperability.  It's much 
easier to add features to a "standard" knowing that they won't be 
universally implemented than to refactor out the core stuff that really is 
universal from the peripheral stuff that is quasi-proprietary (in the case 
of SQL) or useful only to specific subgroups (e.g. notations, parameter 
entities) or just very problematic in practice (default attribute values 
come to mind).

Inclusiveness is politically easy, but saps the real value of 
standardization. I want the core stndard to be the intersection of things 
that are actually supported and actually work, not the union of all the 
things that different people want to use.  The intersection of "SOAP 
practice" and "Docbook practice" is a subset of "XML 1.x" and I think it 
deserves a recognized identity, and some respect :-)


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS