[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Candle is different from XML in syntax in many ways, but all with
> rationale behind them, we don't want to re-invent just to be
> different.
I think that what you've done looks interesting, and I will be interested to
see what happens to it.
There are some interesting questions of presentation/marketing. If you
stress the similarities to XML, you risk antagonizing the people who
understand the value of XML conformance; if you chose instead to stress the
differences, you might find the product became more attractive to those who
understand XML's technical weaknesses (sometimes these are the same people).
Many of the things you are saying amount to the fact that XML has gradually
become rather a mess, and it is need of refactoring. Perhaps it really is
time that as a community we started to think about doing it again, and doing
it better next time. Personally, I suspect we haven't quite reached that
point yet: the benefits of conformance are still too high. I'd give it
another five years.
One thing I'm pretty sure of, though, is that a "son-of-XML" doesn't stand
much chance without a broad consensus behind it, and that's not going to
come from one smart product lobbed in to the marketplace from the sidelines.
I haven't had a chance to study the detail. Namespaces are a mess that needs
sorting out, but if we're going to sort them out, a lot of discussion is
needed to agree on how it is done.
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
|
