Re: [xml-dev] Whither XML ?

[COUTHURES Alain <alain.couthures@agencexml.com>]

 

bd7cd.bdec2ac.3a0719b8@aol.com" type="cite">

   Clearly there are issues of syntax simplification which can be addressed.

Yes, I already suggested some simplifications for XML 2.0 at http://xmltoday.org/2010/11/options-for-xml-2-0/

bd7cd.bdec2ac.3a0719b8@aol.com" type="cite">

  More fundamental though are semantic issues.

   The first insight here is that XML standards generally support various models, including models for other models.  Fundamental generic models to be supported with broad and consistent capabilities are application models for data( physical and logical views, metadata, etc.), for presentation(HTML, Open office, SVG, CSS, etc.), for communication and for control (data and work flow, state machines, etc.).   As with the Model/View/Controller paradigm, these together can provide a complete, unified and consistent framework for application development.

That's what can be seen with XForms at http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/ and my own implementation (XSLTForms: http://www.agencexml.com/xsltforms) can also dynamically generate SVG graphs from instance data.

Open Office documents are not pure XML ones but zipped files, some of them being XML documents while others usually are binary ones. It would be great if XML engines could natively deal with compressed formats!

bd7cd.bdec2ac.3a0719b8@aol.com" type="cite">

    The second insight here that these models are based on a specification language, rather than a procedural language, and that, as a specification language there are considerable improvements that can be made to XML fundamentals to ease development and interactions among these and other models.  For instance it should be possible to deal with schema, style sheets, metadata, data content, etc. in a common and consistent way. 

As for XForms again, forms can be generated from schemas. XSLT stylesheets can also be used anywhere.

bd7cd.bdec2ac.3a0719b8@aol.com" type="cite">

    Basically then this is a recognition that what started as a “markup” language can serve well as a “models” language.

    The objective here then is to create a complete and consistent specification language that forms the basis for developers to create executable application frameworks based on generic models for data, presentation, communication and processing.  A secondary objective is to create a base whereby it is simpler to develop and adopt new standards.

XSLTForms allows to use standard browsers without plug-in but security concerns don't allow to save files on local disk.

XSLTForms is based on an XSLT stylesheet to transform XForms elements into HTML elements+Javascript. XSLT engines are fast and browsers have one. XSLT can easily be used for prototyping new standards and, for instance, I'm thinking about HTML5 elements support in XSLTForms for allowing old browsers to render them.

For a full XML architecture, usually named XRX, XQuery and XProc can be used too.

bd7cd.bdec2ac.3a0719b8@aol.com" type="cite">

    In that this is meant to be a somewhat revolutionary approach, a primary concern is compatibility.  This needs to be addressed; for instance, with alternative language processing and through extended and alternate “infosets” which can be supported by a common agent.

XRX is a disruptive architecture and it's a problem for developers being sure to be the best ones because they use one of Java, Javascript, .Net, PHP, ... For instance, XSLTForms extensions can be written in Javascript but with precautions for good interactions.

bd7cd.bdec2ac.3a0719b8@aol.com" type="cite">

   Much of this is outlined in more detailed documentation that is under development and can be made available.

That's very interesting!

bd7cd.bdec2ac.3a0719b8@aol.com" type="cite">

   This note is to inquire if there is interest in the community in pursuing such a fundamental look at approaches for the further development of XML standards.

I'm convinced that the community is more and more concerned. Still not having powerful XML standards, such as XSLT 2.0, implemented in browsers has been argued after W3C TPAC 2010 (http://saxonica.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2010/11/4/4671786.html). More and more people are now perceiving something but still few can see how important this can be.

Thanks!

-Alain