Re: [xml-dev] Not using mixed content? Then don't use XML

[James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:
> On 4/10/13 7:51 AM, James Fuller wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Simon St.Laurent
>> <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you enjoy the disease, you're unlikely to want a cure.  Some
>>> diseases are like that.
>>
>>
>> After reading various email threads ... I am still at a lost at what
>> you are identifying as the disease that is in effect here. ... can
>>
>> you explain too me the symptoms and specifics of the disease you
>> speak of ( in terms a small child can understand )?
>
>
> The disease is the brittle legalism that schemas encourage and then enforce.

right, but as most know on this list ... schemas are optional ... I
dont understand your rigid conflation with schema usage and XML.
Personally I think schema application is just a matter of timing ...
thats nice thing about XML stack eg you dont have to use a schema and
you can if you want too enshrine things once volatility in the data
model calms down.

So to sum up and put simply and to encapsulate knowledge;

     You think the usage of schemas are a bad idea with XML, their
usage is so widespread to be considered a terrible disease and we need
to be purged of their usage ?

I could just as easily say you are laying down the tenets for some
form of Spanish Inquisition, but hell I agree with you on most points
about usage of schemas ... you may even dismiss them as a form of
early optimisation.

> We mistook this disease for the true promise of XML - agreements!
> transparency! - and encouraged it to rage in epidemic form, driving
> developers and organizations away from XML and markup entirely.

in the xml circles I am/was running, terms such as 'true promise'
never popped up as a concept.

> It is not the only issue driving developers away from the XML ecosystem, as
> previously discussed.  However, it seems to be the issue made invisible by
> our blinders, the piece we just can't imagine is really a problem.

once again ... the statement 'driving developers away' makes me think
you value adoption over all things... there are corners of computer
science which are fascinating, correct and fully under adopted.

however, XML is not one of them ... XML has huge adoption, we are just
not at the very top table anymore and really probably never should
have been there in the first place. To make a football analogy ... we
will be in the 1st division though for the next 30 years.

> The odds are excellent this post will provoke more "brittle legalism? But it
> isn't!  It couldn't be!  It works for me!" replies, though hopefully that
> phase of the conversation is coming to a close.
>
> The cure is more complicated, but the first step is acknowledging the need
> for (heck, the existence of) alternative approaches.

doesn't sound complicated to me ... just dont use schemas ? oh but
then you will start using code to constrain your data ... after a few
projects eventually you will build up abstractions, flexible
mechanisms and code libraries that start looking like what schemas do
already ... then you will ask yourself perhaps its better to adopt
something thats been discussed generally as a standard .... ad
infinitum.

Schemas are only as powerful as the programming language (and idioms)
and hardware architectures they are developed upon ... I get the
feeling (and concur with you) we need more expressive approaches ... I
am sure there has been a lot of work and research in academic
literature pointing how hardware must change (which is the trigger
really for any 'real' change in our industry).

I actually think what you want is new hardware to enable this revolution.

Jim Fuller