[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I don't thing we should giving up having a standard just because it is
difficult to establish such a standard.
I can't say because its difficult to establish a standard character
encoding across a diverse company, then we don't want Unicode.
XML is already given. And I think by today, it seems the industry can
only agree on the least common denominator that XML is just a syntax
standard.
However, I don't think it is really that hard to extend XML further to
make it strong typed.
XML was initially designed without Namespace, and it is now patched with
namespace and everyone is happy to accept it.
Actually, XML can be patched in similar way to make it strong-typed.
E.g. we can define a special XML attribute say xml:strong-typed = "yes"
| "no"
when the value is yes, then the "characters" in the quoted string of
attribute or in <elmt>content</elmt> should be parsed with a set of
well-defined syntax rules to reveal the types.
So eople don't want strong type can still use the good old XML. But
people like strong type can use the new 'XML 1.2 With Strong Data Type',
so that they can exchange their data with explicit type information
without the burden of alawys having to have full schema.
So that when we people is defining a new application of XML, say SVG,
they wouldn't have to reinvent an abstract syntax for its path
attribute. And it would also make the SVG processor job easier, as the
path data is just a standard list of values, and they don't have to
write specific code to parse it and serialize it.
However, I do agree with Michael Kay that there's at least another 5
years to reach a point to refactor XML.
While the industry can wait another 5 years, being developers ourselves,
we cannot wait another 5 years.
That's why we started to invent Candle. If it's just one or two years
ahead, we would just wait happily for that to happen.
Henry
Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Greg Alvord wrote:
>
>> ยท Is the interoperable canonical data model connecting the
>> systems of a company a bug or feature. Enterprise Bus design uses
>> the approach.
>>
>
> Inside one company. if that company isn't too big or diverse, you can
> force everyone to use the same software and the same data model. In a
> small company or organization, this may even happen naturally. However
> the larger and more distributed companies, organizations, and groups
> become, the harder it is to enforce a single data model because
> different organizations and individuals have different ways of seeing
> the world. This is natural, and there's nothing wrong with it. Some of
> the techniques that work in single organizations fail when applied to
> multiple organizations or on Internet scale.
>
|
