Lists Home |
Date Index |
> GIF, JPEG>SVG,
> HLINKs > XLinks,
> TeX/LaTeX >MathML.
> TeX/LaTeX> MathML.
> Specific formats> CML.
> HTML> XHTML
HLINKs > XLinks,
Specific formats> CML. (this is _not_ really from w3c)
SVG> Graphical-CSS, Canvas.
Content MathML --> Semantic TeX, OpenMath?
presentation-MathML --> CSS-Math (currently unpopular and mainly not
explored as alternative)
XHTML1.x, 2> HTML 5
> 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.
> It seems to me that xml does not compete because it is designed to be
> comprehensively complete.
Well, in almost all of examples above XML just is rejected because lacking
completeness for real life problems. For instance, MathML prints very bad,
then people return to TeX engines; CML is just for elementary chemistry
then journals continue usign old specific files for chemical information;
XSL-FO lacks adequate properties for online rendering then people choose
CSS; XSLT is too complex and limited e.g. lacks supports for dynamical
focused in w3c 'semantic vision' but ignoring some real needs for Web
applications then devlopers launch HTML5, SVG is too complex, bloated, and
presentational then this years graphical CSS draft proposed by Baron
People wait small incremental changes over available _working_
technologies. Many w3c proposals are reinventing the wheel in an
Part of the problem is also the lack of compatibility and guidance on the
XML world. A couple of N different technologies could be substituted by a
single _unified_ working all-in-one technology. Benefits of such one thing
are giant! The problem is when technology-1 is XMLized in a way
incompatible with technology-2 and that with 3 and so on. Then one
recovers a XML version of the previous messy system and that provide
little practical benefit to most of people.
Take the case of links each spec use a different system How is possible
most basic element of the web was treated in different ways by w3c groups.
Users do not want play to the w3c WG internal wars, just want working
results: working and if possible cheap.
I, of course, am _not_ saying that w3c specifications are useless, i am
_not_ saying that XML was useless, I am saying that ratios
(achieved/waited) and (sucess/propaganda) are very low for XML doing small
its presence on the visible web.
> Thanks for the good work!
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)