XML.orgXML.org
FOCUS AREAS |XML-DEV |XML.org DAILY NEWSLINK |REGISTRY |RESOURCES |ABOUT
OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Static resolution of names is preferred over dynamicresolution of names

Another "matter" is that XML gives us an unprecedented way of addressing information
* unambiguously - thanks to the pair (resource URI, QName)
* extremely concisely and mind-friendly - thanks to XPath
* in as complex and aggregated a way as we choose - XPath/XQuery

This addressing feature is seamlessly embedded in a yet larger functionality, the application of operations to information - thanks to XQuery.

So there certainly are some shortcomings here and there, and of course it makes sense to discuss them. But should they not be seen in perspective? The perspective which I find appropriate only emerges when we see XML (the representation of information), XDM (the definition of information content conveyed by its representation), XPath (the addressing of information) and XQuery (operations applied to information) as a single whole, a system, with various facets or views. That is at any rate what the experts should do, and the tone, which according to Goethe makes the music, would often be different from what it tends to be.

Hans-J├╝rgen


Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> schrieb am 10:23 Montag, 18.April 2016:



>
> I think I eventually have to ask...
>
> What's the matter?

The "matter" is that XML and its programming APIs are excessively complex. This has several undesirable consequences:

* People write poor-quality applications that don't achieve full interoperability

* People struggle to get those applications working at all (see StackOverflow)

* People abandon XML and use alternatives such as JSON, which brings a different set of problems.

Namespaces are a very significant component of this excess complexity.

Now, digging ourselves out of this hole is not easy and may well be impossible. But it's still useful to try and understand how we got into it.

Michael Kay
Saxonica



>
> I have been very happily using namespaces and prefixes with xml and rdf/xml for years. I always saw only advantages in it and no hindrances.
>
> I have also followed with interest the work done to carry this information in JSON (which need came late but eventually surfaced).
>
> So, again, what's the problem if there is one.
>
> As for the statement about namespaces being the result of some political process, then it proves that politics can helps, sometimes :--)
>
> Jean-pierre
>



_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS