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 3:27 PM, Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:
>> 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 ?
>
>
> Yes.  There may be corner cases where they are actually beneficial, but the
> risks of descriptive markup turning into prescriptive markup are
> substantial.

ok thanks for the confirmation

>> in the xml circles I am/was running, terms such as 'true promise'
>> never popped up as a concept.
>
>
> What XML circles are/were those?  Again, I'm happy to find exceptions -
> they're just rarely as exceptional as people seem to believe when their work
> is being criticized.

outside the US ... I was contemplating about making a grand sweeping
statement how technology is percieved and used somewhat differently
outside the US (esp from the hothouse of silicon valley) , but it
would only distract from this conversation.

criticism is good when its constructive and specific ... now that I
know you dont like schemas ... it took a few emails to get there.

> I absolutely value adoption.  It isn't everything - I just wrote a book on
> the strange wondrous corner that is Erlang.  It is growing, but I won't be
> saddened if its future is more to teach than to deploy.
>
> Beautiful is good.  Beautiful hidden away in a dark corner where few can see
> the beauty, buried under layers of dross... well, I'm sure there's a fine
> story waiting to be written there.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> XML is dwindling.

sorry, but you are wrong, if anything we haven't even started yet ...
markup may change and evolve and go through cataclysmic shifts (like
we did in the past 10 years) but its not going away.

> I suppose that burdening JSON with schemas could be an excellent way to
> cripple it and make people think XML wasn't so bad.  However, except for
> minor verbosity issues, there is no reason at all that markup couldn't have
> had JSON's place in the development ecosystem.  If only we hadn't tripped
> over our own feet...

ah, a new data point ... you really think that schemas somehow
contributed to perceived downfall of markup ?

I doubt schemas were adopted enough to contribute to anything ... sure
they were and are used quite a bit, but only on a fraction of markup
usage.

>> To make a football analogy ... we
>> will be in the 1st division though for the next 30 years.
>
>
> It does a university little good to spend a fortune on a football stadium
> for a team whose record gets worse every year.  I don't see XML surviving
> beyond legacy work for more than a decade on its current course.

I see you've never supported a football team before ... but sure I see
your analogy and I will go one further in that we should never be
sentimental about technology ... loyalty is for humans.

> Sorry.  It's clear that I have to describe a path forward in more detail.
> If you think schemas are inevitable, I clearly have a lot more work to do.

I am getting confused,you are fine with constraining data in code but
not in schemas ?

Is this just a degenerate case of strong versus weak typing you are discussing ?

>> I actually think what you want is new hardware to enable this revolution.
>
>
> Not remotely.  It's up to the people, not the hardware.  The flaw is not in
> the machines, but in ourselves.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, good luck with fixing people, made me laugh deeply
that statement.

Jim Fuller