RE: [xml-dev] NVDL: A Disruptive Technology

[Len Bullard <len.bullard@uai.com>]

Those are two languages:  SQL and Java.  XML isn't a single language. 

We've haven't explored the topic of what is expressible in XML application
languages in some time.  How could we narrow that scope relative to the
topic of validation constraints expressible?

Then there are the non-technical but practical issues of utility given
different environments with different classes of users.  The mammal problems
are also a source of complexity.  The language designers are known to say
they can't solve these.  The buyers of the products are known to consider
those problems first.

Mike Daconta and I were discussing this on xml.com.  He used the term
'greedy standard'.  It isn't an aspersion but a way to describe what happens
when one standard tries to fit all requirements and *situations*.

Sorry, I don't want to start a philosophy thread, but it seems to me that
we've never made a single language work in all situations and that is
precisely why we created XML.

len


From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@saxonica.com] 
 
> Mike, that flies in the face of everything we've learned 
> historically and technically about language evolution and 
> separation of concerns in environments where multiple 
> components interface with a complex base.  It's the Big 
> Button strategy.  It has never worked before.  What has 
> changed that would make one believe it can be made to work by remedy?

There aren't two languages for defining integrity constraints in SQL
databases, or for defining assertions in Java; why should there be two for
defining validation constraints in XML documents? The scope is sufficiently
narrow that one language ought to be enough.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.