[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
As you point out Betamax lost out because video stores couldn't afford
to support multiple formats. What makes you think the same doesn't apply
for tools vendors and integrating mutltiple schema languages into their
tools and frameworks? Simply having the W3C start trumpetting RELAX NG
as the second coming isn't enough. You have to have paying customers
asking tools vendors to bear the costs of supporting multiple schema
languages.
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe
you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be
sure.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@intergraph.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 2:00 PM
> To: 'DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)'; 'Michael Champion'; XML Developers List
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] So, what's new in the world of RELAX NG?
>
> John Cowan also did a rather good presentation on Relax NG at 2004.
> His points on why RelaxNG is good were well made.
>
> I asked in a meeting I chaired how many thought it would be a
> good idea if Relax NG were more prominent (or something like
> that). Not many hands went up. Not good.
>
> 1) We beat the standards message into a lot of heads in the
> last decade. It worked.
>
> 2) Predictably, the W3C As Good Standards and ISO As Clueless
> Standards messages converged with message 1. Toss in the
> Microsoft Does W3C Schema as an externality with positive
> feedback effects for XSD and....
>
> Result: RelaxNG Bad. W3C Schema Good. Schematron: whatever
> (we have business rules but ok).
>
> It's a nonlinear network out there. Given the inability to
> figure out the details, managers, buyers, etc., punt to the
> greatest signal. They can't afford multiple ways to do the
> same thing.
>
> So now what? Seems obvious. The W3C should endorse RelaxNG
> as a preferred alternative. That will be as good as it gets.
> The lock is not on the schema type but on the tools.
>
> len
>
> The weird thing is, Betamax didn't just lose, it disappeared.
> The interesting question is why? Video stores couldn't
> afford two formats because they were in a low margin market.
> Given a limited supply of movies, video stores were the
> externality that pushed the Betamax all the way out of the
> market. See "Betamax Revisited: A Contextual View of the
> Battle for the Home VCR Market"
>
>
> From: DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) [mailto:bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com]
>
> > Likewise, just doing a text search on the "agenda at a glance", XML
> >2002 seems to have had 3 presentations on RELAX NG, XML 2003
> had 1, and
> >XML 2004 had none.
>
> My talk "Documents vs. Data, Schemas vs. Schemas"[1] didn't
> mention RELAX NG in the title so that it would show up in the
> schedule summaries, but it came to the conclusion that lots
> of people out there would be better off using RELAX NG than XSD.
>
> A "why RNG is good" presentation would end up preaching
> mostly to the faithful, and I thought that a talk structured
> around more generalized processing issues would be better for
> the conference than one that focused on pushing a specific
> tool, especially if the tool is not as new as it was in 2002.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
>
|
