[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Waleed Abdulla wrote:
>
>>
>> I appreciate the openness to discuss the possibility of breaking out the
>> XForms model into its own specs. And, if that happens, I would be very
>> interested in that effort, as I'm sure many others.
>> However, taking the XForms model as it stands today, performing some
>> cosmetic changes, and then promoting it as a rules language is, I'm
>> afraid,
>> not the right approach. The scope change from working with forms into
>> working with a wide universe of applications ranging from Web services to
>> rules engines is too great that it requires nothing less than a major
>> redesign effort.
>> The right approach, in my humble opinion, is to start fresh and
>> gather
>> all the specs that relate to the field and pick the best features from
>> each
>> one.
Cheery picking the best features a from a set of languages none of which
are suitable on their own merits sounds like a good way to design a bad
language.
>> And, I would suggest (warning: shameless promotion ahead) that
>> XRules
>> is a good starting point for such effort because it's designed
>> specifically
>> to be an independent rules language for XML (as opposed to semantic rules
>> languages),
What is the distinction between a semantic rules language and an
independent rules language for XML?
cheers
Bill
|
