[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Le mardi 07 février 2006 à 11:52 +1100, Rick Jelliffe a écrit :
> Michael Champion said:
>
> >> From: vdv@dyomedea.com> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006
> >> 12:46:14 +0100> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Minimal XML Specification
> >> > The metaphor is misused IMO: XML in general (and WXS in particular)
> >> was> becoming a monkey with three arms and some people were trying to
> >> avoid> it!
> > I agre with Eric's recollection - the minimalism ranting was a *reaction*
> > to the obvious inevitability of W3C XSD by early 2000 or so. Also
> > remember that the minimalist ranting was as much a reaction to the nasty
> > innards of XML itself as to the XSD drafts. I know my Day Job life today
> > is made just as miserable by DTDs as XSD, but it was way too late to do
> > anything about XML in late 1999 - early 2000.
>
> So Minimal XML etc were being developed to make markup languages that
> would evade XSD's crystal-balled complexity? Simplifying syntax/infoset
> seems a rather lateral if not Amish approach to that goal :-)
Speaking only for myself, the ugliness of WXS has been the revelation
that everything was not perfect in XML land and trying to think at what
could have been done better has been a really useful exercise that is
still influencing the way I am using XML today.
> I raised it at the time, before the hundreds of hours
> of some of the brightest brains in the community were diverted:
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/199911/msg00360.html
>
> "The debate about a simpler XML is just a waste of time.
> Where are the people debating about a simpler XML Schema
> proposal! That is something where people might have some
> impact? "
>
> and http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/199911/msg00398.html
>
> "And, as for whether SML is a distraction from XML schemas, how many
> postings have there been on XML-DEV about the structure drafts? There
> have been a couple of good ones about the datatypes, but not on the
> structures, that I recall. I predict that the moment that the XML
> Schema becomes a recommendation, this mailing list will bustle with
> well-reasoned calls for simplified XML Schema--alas too late."
>
> XSD was the watershed where XML standards development passed from
> being driven by the community to big vendors. I can understand if
> you are saying that Minimal XML, SML etc were influenced by this
> sea change, as some kind of last democratic gasp. But the community
> fiddled while Rome burned.
Most if not all the points that we criticise today in WXS have been
submitted before it went a recommendation on WXS mailing lists with no
result.
What makes you think the community would have have changed anything by
spending more time to try to influence the spec?
> But it isn't all bad news: the torch has passed to the more
> productive persuit of promoting a stack made from technologies
> which seem simpler (AJAX, POX, XForms and so on, which marginalize
> structural schemas and static typing) or which are more rigorous
> (XQuery, RELAX NG, Schematron, which have more formalized definitions.)
Exactly and my point is that thinking differently like we dit for
Minimal XML has been influential for these simpler designs (it has been
at least in my case).
Eric
--
GPG-PGP: 2A528005
Weblog:
http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog?t=category&a=English
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
|
