[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Philippe,
Yes, I remember the announcement for this project. It looks
interesting but in looking through things there were a number of tems
that raised questions and concerns so I thought it best to give it
time to mature before worrying much about looking into things any
deeper.
I will point pout that your comment:
> this is exactly what you can do with Active Tags :
...can be quickly and easily countered by stating "yeah, and its
exactly what you can do with XML." Don't get me wrong. I'm not
trying to slam your project nor your efforts. Obviously XML contains
the syntax that can then be used to create projects like Active Tags
to do whatever it is you want to do with an XML-based syntax but at a
higher, and specifically defined element level. You have done a
really nice job of providing a nice high lever abstract which was
compelling enough for me to want to at least scan through the pages a
bit more to see what it was that made this project stand out. I think
that with any type of declaritive style XML-based language there is a
definitely need to showcase the fact that with this defined set of XML
elements and attributes the benefits of using this specification
instead of raw XML and an XSLT/XQuery processor have got to be
painfully obvious. e.g. SVG provides the ability to create an
extremely advanced user interface by using a syntax that has been
simplified to the point that a minimal amount of information is needed
to create some pretty spectacular results. While I recognize the fact
that within your abstract you state a primary focus to:
<snip/> ...interoperable with other non-XML technologies
I wonder just what it is (beyond RDBMS; the term "Web" that follows
doesn't make any sense... are you suggesting that XML, XPath, XSLT,
XQuery, etc... can't interoperate with the web???
I got as far as the definition/business case against XSLT/for Active
Tags and abrubtly stopped right then and there as your statements are
apparently based somewhat on XSLT 1.0 but even with 1.0 it seems
you've got some confusing points that may or may not be valid. I
recognize that XSLT 2.0, XPath 2.0, and XQuery are not currently a
member of the recommended working draft family at the W3C. But theres
absolutely no way you can exclude technologies that are as close to
recommended as you can get before being called recommended, with the
added benefit of several implementations of all three of these
technologies in released commercial and open-source projects that are
considered production ready releases. When you add these 3 specs to
the mix I am seeing very little, if any benefit to using a
specification that doesnt offer me anything else that I cant do and
adds to the mix yet another API I have to learn. I would just rather
"invent the API as I go" so to speak using raw XML and an XSLT
2.0/XPath 2.0/XQuery 1.0 processor as I can write that code in my
sleep and I know that for the most part its bug free.
But to be fair, I did stop at the definition of XSLT and for all I
know what I have missed out on is nothing less than spectacular. But
I can't take the chance that it may not be all that spectacular simply
because without proper comparison against the 2.0 spec theres no way I
can evaluate what benefits there may be and as such can't spin the
cycles necessary to read this until it does contain that proper
comparison.
Still, I want to make sure you know I am in no way condemning your
work or suggesting there is little if any value. I LOVE people with
passion and those in whom take it upon themselves to make our lives
easier and better and more fun to live. I have that same type of
drive inside of me so to condemn your efforts would be an obvious
mistake of which I have no desire to make. With the proper
comparisons made against the current competing technologies, which at
this point as far as I can tell are XT2/XP2/XQ, this could be
something really cool and really worthwhile. Can you take the time to
make those comparisons or would that be something better suited for a
time when the implementation/processing engine is complete and as such
you are able to focus on these types of details?
Either way, I look forward to learning more at a point that it is a
bit more clear just what it is that you have accomplished with the
development of this technology.
Best regards,
<M:D/>
sOn 4/21/05, Philippe Poulard <Philippe.Poulard@sophia.inria.fr> wrote:
> M. David Peterson wrote:
> >
> > Sequence definition file:
> >
> > <sequence id="seq1">
> > <do_this/>
> > <then_this/>
> > <if_this>
> > <do_this/>
> > </if_this>
> > </sequence>
>
> this is exactly what you can do with Active Tags :
> http://disc.inria.fr/perso/philippe.poulard/xml/active-tags/active-tags/active-tags.html
>
> --
> Cordialement,
>
> ///
> (. .)
> -----ooO--(_)--Ooo-----
> | Philippe Poulard |
> -----------------------
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
>
--
<M:D/>
:: M. David Peterson ::
XML & XML Transformations, C#, .NET, and Functional Languages Specialist
|
