[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
A good example of a success story (if you want to call it that) would be
that of SOAP, which was moderately successful before even entering a
standards organization. Of the various messaging/RPC mechanisms
available, it really only had XML-RPC to compete with, and that
competition didn't last very long. That may be one of those 'because
Microsoft says so' cases though.
In 1991, most conferences of that nature were intimate affairs. Also, I
think the ability to not have to write pure C was the overwhelming
motivator for C++ rather than portability, especially for those of us
who were living and developing in the MS-DOS world as departmental
programmers at that time.
On the subject of XML databases, providing the 'collection' function
seems like an afterthought in the overall scheme of things, mostly
passing the buck to the vendors to figure out how to virtualize their
storage systems for the XQuery engine, rather than approaching and
working with those vendors to agree on a concise model for addressing
collections of documents, wherever they may roam. But that's just my
opinion, this is only the second XML database I've worked on.
--
Tom Bradford - Virtuoso Technology Evangelist
OpenLink Software: http://www.openlinksw.com/
Personal Web Log: http://www.tbradford.org/
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> 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.
>
> Jonathan
>
> 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.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
|
