Re: [xml-dev] Lessons learned from the XML experiment

["Timothy W. Cook" <tim@mlhim.org>]

Thanks for the insight Michael.

I will close with this though.  XML is not a competitor and does not
have competitors.  It is a technological solution.

Technology companies have competitors in and out of the XML world.
Simplifying XML to accommodate capitalism not a good solution.

If you want to lobby to change the XML specifications, purely to
benefit your company and in the process take away a solution that is
useful to others, does that help society?  No it helps your company.
If your company doesn't want to compete in this environment it likely
should make other decisions about its product line.

Note: You and your is used above in the general sense.

Kind Regards,
Tim


On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
>>
>> But the question is; Are namespaces in XML broken?
>>
>
> Frankly, software people should stop using the word "broken". It has emotional impact but little real meaning.
>
> Namespaces are complex. They make things that should be easy difficult. They may also make things that are difficult (like Hans-Juergen's schema-merging task) easier, but that's a poor design trade-off; if we optimize for complex tasks then we will lose out to competitors that optimize for simple tasks.
>
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica
>



-- 
MLHIM VIP Signup: http://goo.gl/22B0U
============================================
Timothy Cook, MSc           +55 21 94711995
MLHIM http://www.mlhim.org
Like Us on FB: https://www.facebook.com/mlhim2
Circle us on G+: http://goo.gl/44EV5
Google Scholar: http://goo.gl/MMZ1o
LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook