Lists Home |
Date Index |
There were systems such as IADS that were widely deployed
in DoD systems that predate XML and already incorporated
many of its features (eg, DTDless, stylesheets) and some
of SGML (minimization enabled). It's design did reflect
the designers' needs and the needs of the customers of the
day. Many turned out to be general needs.
So, no, little adoption of XML before there was XML, but
some adoption of SGML-lite before there was such a thing,
and yes, driven by needs not standards. In fact, the IADS
crew was kicked around at times and in certain circles for
refusing to become fully SGML conformant.
A good customer use case outranks a standard every time.
What has happened in the last ten years is that standards
developers have become more adept at determining use cases.
Umm... more are aware than ever before?
.. pruned the CC list for the usual economies
From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:email@example.com]
Can you provide some examples of successful XML standards that gained
significant market share before the standard was released?
I rather suspect standards are more important in the modern XML world
than they were in the early C++ or SQL world. But beyond that, my memory
doesn't match yours for C++. In 1991, C++ conferences were rather
intimate affairs, but we had started to get to the point that you
actually could write code that worked on many platforms. We supported
lots of platforms with POET in 1991 - you needed conditional
compilation, but mostly for operating-system dependent things. The
popularity of the language really picked up at that point. So I do think
that the ability to write portable code was very important for C++. I
wasn't an early SQL hacker, I can't say much about that history.
Tom Bradford wrote:
> Let's paint a broader picture. I don't think we're talking about market
> adoption of a standard, we're talking about market adoption of a
> technology. A good example: C++ was finally standardized in 1997, but
> was already gaining rapid momentum shortly after being created in 1985.
> C++ gained an audience because it addressed its target audiences
> problems, for the most part, appropriately, and they overwhelmingly
> didn't care whether or not it was standardized, or even had
> implementations that were compatible with each other. We can make the
> same case for SQL.
> Technologies don't become adopted because of their standards status,
> they're adopted on their own virtues, or because Microsoft tells you
> that you have to adopt them. XQuery has not been finalized for years,
> yet it hasn't changed all that much from the 10k ft view, making it a
> perfectly good candidate for implementations, even moreso than SQL or
> C++ were in their early years. The implementations are there, and
> they're mostly good, so now the question to ask is why aren't people
> using them in the numbers you were expecting?
> Tom Bradford - Virtuoso Technology Evangelist
> OpenLink Software: http://www.openlinksw.com/
> Personal Web Log: http://www.tbradford.org/
> Jonathan Robie wrote:
>> Tom Bradford wrote:
>>> On the contrary, I think the fact that it's now December of 2004,
>>> and we've yet to see a rec of XQuery 1.0, even though it's been
>>> touted as the de-facto successor in XML query languages for years
>>> leaves ample room for comparison. Any language that has been built
>>> up on that much hype for so long, yet is not finished, is open for
>>> comparison to any other, even if it hasn't found widespread acceptance.
>> I think that market adoption of a standard is hugely influenced by
>> (1) a completed standard, and (2) good implementations of that
>> completed standard.
>> If you think a fair comparison can be made without taking these into
>> account, I guess we disagree.
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription