[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Title: RE: [xml-dev] [ANN] Candle 0.8 - a new scripting language for XML
In this case, Berjon is right. What has actually worked
is to specify a syntax-based format and to leave the
type stuff to another layer. What you characterize
as 'disruptive' innovation is 'relearning because
history didn't'. It took the markup
and then the web community a long time to come to the
realization that binding types strongly to a
syntax standard is a bad design for reach and scale
even if it works for a particular product.
It isn't a question of real frustrations but of shared
frustrations. It is sort of like Internet Explorer
mindshare and open source projects like Firefox: at some
point, one runs out of early adopters and the 'anything
but Microsoft' folks and faces the reality that the
overwhelming majority isn't dissatisfied enough for
the same reasons so the Nash equilibrium holds.
I don't recall a time when thinking about refactoring XML has NOT been
going on here and elsewhere since the day XML was first conceived, and for
the SGMLers, before that.
Why doesn't it take root? None of the complaints
and solutions ever converge to a critical mass in
a specification cum standard. The momentum isn't there,
so 'son of XML' is yet another product looking for a market.
But all of that aside, if it isn't well-formed, it isn't XML.
Anyone making gratuitous modifications to the syntax deserves
to see their products consigned to the o-file. Anyone who
wants to sell a welded type system has to overcome all of the
bolt-ons. Consensus? Ok. Competition? Really. Start over?
Sure. As has been said to every vendor, person, or group
that has come to XML-Dev to announce a new XML-like language,
do as you will and best of luck, but call it something else
because it isn't XML. If the W3C takes action to reformulate
XML, that will be something to behold and possibly it will
be informed by projects like Henry's.
len
From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@gmail.com]
Overall, I'd echo most of Michael Kay's comments - this is interesting
and reflects real frustrations with "real" XML. The timing may not be
right - it will take AT LEAST 5 years before the messiness of XML
starts to outweigh the value of commonality, but it's useful to at
least think about how to refactor XML now.
I'm not so sure I agree '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.' Most industries started out as disruptive innovations
lobbed in from the sidelines, and consensus formed around what
actually worked.
| 