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

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

On 4/10/13 9:52 AM, James Fuller wrote:
>> 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.

Hmm... I've frequently described XML as a "Commonwealth project" with
relatively few deep ties to the US, much less Silicon Valley.  Send me
the distractions offlist?

> 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'm surprised, but I probably should have changed the subject line long
ago to make that clearer.

>> 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.

XML on its current path is dwindling, whatever you may mutter.

The purpose of my recent writing here is to encourage a "cataclysmic
shift", because if we don't have one, it will be over.

>> 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 ?

Yes, absolutely.  Have you spent much time with folks using JSON?

> 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.

An incredibly visible and well-promoted fraction.

> I see you've never supported a football team before ...

I went to a college that has since dropped its Division III team
completely.  I do understand the pain of cheering for a losing team, as
the Buffalo Bills are definitely my local favorite, but that is itself a
warning.

> 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.

Absolutely.  And when we've applied schemas and schema-like constructs
to humans and human conversation, the results have frequently been
catastrophic.

>> 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 ?

Data has to be constrained in code somewhere.  It's more about where - 
locally, not globally - and when - on a conversation by conversation 
basis rather than in advance.

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

I'm pretty sure that's a separate set of issues.

>> 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.

Well, I've been using "original sin" to describe markup's legacy of 
schema orientation, so I suppose we have to pray for grace.

Seriously, though, if you don't think it's possible to change the 
culture, why are you wasting time on this conversation?  (I'm clearly an 
Arminian, not a Calvinist.)

Thanks,
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/