[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
mc@xegesis.org (Mike Champion) writes:
>I must be missing something -- a lot of people whose opinion I respect
>seem to be drawing the wagons around XML 1.x, warts and all. Serious
>question: what's driving this? Are people who practice XML 1.x now
>being forced by their customers, partners, tools, etc. to deal with
>the cruft that we've just complained about in the abstract for the
>last few years? Is it getting harder to call oneself an "XML
>specialist" without being asked to deal with gHorribleKludge types,
>incomprehensible and non-interoperable WXS schemas, SOAP-RPC
>fantasies, and XQueries from hell, and it pisses people off that the
>core stuff that really DOES work (e.g. DTDs for documents) is losing
>mindshare?
>
>I could definitely understand the gloom and doom if that is true...
That's what I'm finding, yes.
I could probably bring myself to ignore such problems if XSLT/XPath 2.0
hadn't been dragged into the muck of WXS. I have to admit I was
depressed today to see that SAXON 7.4 has added type madness, if only
through the especially mad xsi:type approach. Now, as a Java-based
developer, I get to choose between the out-of-date XT, the enormous
Xalan, and the only-advancing-in-the-2.0-flavor SAXON. Yeesh.
If all the WXS and strong typing stuff was merely a nuisance that could
be easily ignored because no one had heard of it, I don't think I'd be
too worried. Since it seems to be infecting the toolkits I use and the
minds of the people I work with and sell to, its poison is setting in
for real.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
