Re: [xml-dev] Simple, or dumbed down?

> Should the role of standards organizations be to create simple standards to make them accessible to the masses, or should standards organizations invite the masses to stretch to new intellectual heights?

Neither of these choices correspond to how the standards system works. Standards are technical documents: the standards process is primarily a QA on the documentation. The technology is almost always pre-existing, or passed on from some other lesser standards group.

Talking as if standards are a blue sky effort or as if beauty rather than demand determines how the process works just causes confusion. Sometimes it happens, but rarely with any success: I think XPath is the notable exception. The standard is not the technology, it is the documentation.

Druthers follow, not lead, in this case.

Regards

Rick

On 22 Dec 2016 8:36 am, "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> wrote:

Hi Folks,

Is XML 1.0 a simple data format language, or a dumbed down data format language?

Is JSON a simple data format language, or a dumbed down data format language?

Is XML Schema 1.0 a simple schema language, or a dumbed down schema language?

Is XSLT 1.0 a simple XML scripting language, or a dumbed down XML scripting language?

Is simplicity good (because it makes languages and notations accessible to the masses), or does simplicity merely lower the collective intelligence of the planet?

Do richer, more expressive, more complex languages and notations elevate the collective intelligence of the planet, or do they merely form priesthoods?

/Roger