[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
The lesson to be learned in this is:
generalizations >time> money> require speculation
specifics <time< costs< provide expected outcomes
xml planted its target on the market, not a segment?
Columbus sailed to discover but returned without "loot".
HUMMMMM:
GIF, JPEG>SVG,
Javascript, CSS> xslt,
HLINKs > XLinks,
TeX/LaTeX >MathML.
TeX/LaTeX> MathML.
Specific formats> CML.
HTML> XHTML
At least one assertion may be missing:
"costs( $s and Time) to achieve functional benefit is the
criteria that will select the choice of tool by the implementer."
One vast set of rules able to solve all user problems, will never find
consumer acceptance if a more limited set of rules is available to solve
the specific problem.
The scope of most problems is smaller than the width of xml.
Practical Consumers look to expected benefit.
If xml tools cost $ 2
If xml learning takes $ 50
If to develop benefit in xml costs $20
then, the benefit must exceed > $72
If the benefit to be achieved has an expected value of < $40,
then xml will rarely be the tool of choice.
Where xml expertise already exists, then $ 50 is reduced some,
and xml may be choosen because the prior learning costs have already
been absorbed. Much like linux was choosen by the guru who knew it, but
not by the business manager who was seeking to purchase a product for
the problem at hand. Same for IBM computers in the old days, the more
efficient long range choices were not immediate to the problem, which IBM
was, as a team, there to solve.
It seems to me that xml does not compete because it is designed to be
comprehensively complete.
This thread revealed to me that because xml is vast, it is not everywhere
yet to be found? Like computers, the market might eventually transition
from the narrow, but immediate "IBM SOLUTION of the 60s and 70s" to the
universal generic solution that computers are today. Only time will tell.
Thanks for the good work!
sterling
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote:
> Costello, Roger L. said:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > Once again, many thanks for your outstanding comments. Below I have
> > tried to recap the core assertions. I am sure that many of the
> > assertions could be worded better or more precisely. Please let me
> > know. And as always, I welcome your critique of the assertions.
> > /Roger
> >
> > ASSERTION #1
> >
> > There is little usage of XML on the visible Web. That is, the
> > information available to the end user (or his/her browser) is primarily
> > in the form of (X)HTML, not XML.
>
> Hum, situation is still poor than that (for 'XMLers').
>
> GIF, JPEG... is prefered over XMLs as SVG.
>
> CSS is prefered over XSLT.
>
> JavaScript (Ecma and probably new e4x) are prefered over XSLT.
>
> HLINKs prefered over XLinks
>
> TeX/LaTeX prefered over MathML.
>
> Specific formats for scientific disciplines are prefered. For instance,
>
> HTML prefered over XHTML.
>
> Specific formats for other usages are also prefered. FOr example, MP3 over
> some XML language for music: e.g. MusicXML.
>
> PDF is prefered over XML formats like XSL-FO and similar.
>
> In short, like some guys claimed XML is a big fiasco or "a train to
> nowhere". Of course, it is being used behind the scenes by big-medium size
> companies, but XML was not designed and or proposed for that. XML was SGML
> for the web, the visible one.
>
> Take the case of MathML, publicited as math for the web. Well, several
> publishers are using MathML in their internal workflows, but serving PDF
> or images to end users.
>
> It is not difficult to see then that a standard is not really needed
> behind the scenes. The standard is really needed for _communication_ (and
> no publishers interchanges really information with rival publishers).
>
> > ASSERTION #2
> >
> > XML is not appropriate for the visible Web. XML will continue to have
> > limited usage on the visible Web. As Len Bullard says, "XML is
> > plumbing".
>
> Even i see possible that people using XML for the web return to a HTML
> approach, specially after the interest of browser developers in future
> HTML5. There is gurus on the web who proved XHTML during some time and
> returned to HTML by one or other motive. Some thoughts can be useful for
> discussion:
>
> [http://www.ookingdom.com/design/quitting]
>
> [http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/archive.php?id=2005/03/14/xhtml-is-dead]
>
> Also i see some misinformation to users. Some people want use SVG and then
> think that only way to use SVG is translating the whole web site to XHTML.
> Well, some 'gurus' are using SVG embebeded into 'old' HTML (no XHTML)
> pages. I was perplexed first time i discover that!
>
> [http://www.w3schools.com/svg/svg_inhtml.asp]
>
> [http://www.carto.net/papers/svg/samples/svg_html.shtml]
>
> [http://wiki.svg.org/SVG_and_HTML]
>
> > ASSERTION #3
> >
> > On the visible Web, (X)HTML will continue to be the primary markup
> > language for the foreseeable future.
>
> HTML, probably yes, XHTML i do not know. I suspect that a part of XHTML
> community jump to next XHTML 2, whereas others jump to HTML5. Others will
> prefer to develop proper XML language.
>
> > ASSERTION #4
> >
> > The more a resource makes available its information (in an appropriate
> > way) on the visible Web, the more useful and beneficial it becomes to
> > the Web community.
> >
> > ASSERTION #5
> >
> > Web services are part of the hidden Web, and are useful and beneficial
> > to the Web community only to the extent they are able to contribute or
> > facilitate the availability of information in an appropriate fashion to
> > the visible Web.
> >
> > ASSERTION #6
> >
> > Focus your main efforts on making information available on the visible
> > Web in an appropriate fashion such that the benefits of doing so are
> > maximized, and without introducing a detrimental impact.
>
> Completely agree! or in another way, follow real life not w3c
> grandilocuent proclamations. A good rule today (working in my case) is to
> follow the contrary way to w3c proclamations: XHTML 2 is the future (than
> may be not), XSTL is the language for transformations (then e4x may
> infinitely better), XSL-FO is better than CSS (just use CSS), do not
> develop your own language, use our ones (then begin to develop your own
> language). The MathML WG is developing an input syntax (then develop your
> own) This works very well for me and for some people i know, of course,
> sometimes the rule fails.
>
> > ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
> >
> > I gratefully acknowledge the outstanding comments from the following
> > people:
> >
> > Bryan Rasmussen
> > Chris Gray
> > Colin Muller
> > Dave Pawson
> > David Lyon
> > Derek Denny-Brown
> > Didier PH Martin
> > Doug Rudder
> > Elliotte Rusty Harold
> > Greg Alvord
> > Jim Fuller
> > Juan Gonzalez
> > Len Bullard
> > Michael Kay
> > Mukul Gandhi
> > Richard Salz
> > Sterling Stouden
> > Tei Oscar Vives
> >
> > DEFINITION - VISIBLE WEB
> >
> > The visible Web is the portion of the Web that produces information
> > intended for human consumption. In particular, this document focuses on
> > the portion of the Web that produces information to be consumed by
> > humans via a browser. The visible Web is the portion of the Web that
> > produces information that is available to search engines.
> >
> > DEFINITION - HIDDEN (INVISIBLE) WEB
> >
> > The hidden Web, on the other hand, is the portion of the Web that
> > produces the information intended to be consumed by machines (i.e.,
> > machine-to-machine interaction).
>
>
> Juan R.
>
> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
|
