Reusing, Refactoring, Reinventing??? (was Re: [xml-dev] SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)

I'll preface by saying that I'm pretty much on the fence on the 
substantive question here ... I like the idea of making it easy to use 
"XML" Infoset tools such as SAX (?), DOM, XPath, XSLT, XQuery, etc. 
with data in non-XML syntaxes if they can be cleanly mapped to the 
appropriate data model, but I don't like the idea of bringing type 
systems more deeply into the core XML specs/APIs/data models.

On Nov 9, 2003, at 8:53 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> . I am arguing against a harmful effort to force XML and SAX to accept 
> binary data. If people find a need for Binary Data Language (BDL) and 
> Streaming/Simple API for Data (SAD), please feel free to invent. Of 
> course, it would only be sensible to learn from the experience of SAX 
> when creating this.

I thought the suggestion on the table was to standardize EXTENSIONS to 
SAX to allow binary and/or typed data.  It sounds like textbook 
software engineering to me -- re-use what is common, add specialized 
extensions for what is not common.  Learning from SAX while forking / 
reinventing it seems to do what everybody laments about the state of 
the software industry -- too many wheels being reinvented, too little 
code being reused, resulting in proprietary lock-in, unreliability of 
relatively untested code, etc.

>
> But please don't corrupt SAX or XML in the process. You've got a new 
> data format here that is not XML, and there's no reason you have to 
> bloat XML APIs with support for this new format.

I haven't read/remembered every bit of this thread, but I thought the 
"bloat" would be a couple of generic extension interfaces that would be 
implemented (or not) depending on the needs of a specific parser.  That 
doesn't sound like "corruption" to me.

> I also ask that the designers not call their new format or APIs 
> anything that reminds people of XML. That is, don't use the names SAX, 
> XML, DOM, Xerces, etc. This merely confuses developers. Let the 
> formats, APIs, etc. stand or fall on their own merits without trying 
> to bask in the XML glory.
>

I hvae to disagree with this sentiment.  First, I doubt very much if 
ordinary developers give a rat's patootie about the subtle distinctions 
here, and they are so UTTERLY confused about the various "XML" specs 
and APIs already that this is just a very small drop in an immense 
bucket. Second, what's the difference between "learning from XML" and 
"basking in XML's glory"?  Why shouldn't anyone re-use every bit of the 
XML corpus that works for their needs rather than introduce possible 
sources of error?

Finally, the rhetoric on this list (especially this thread, but 
obviously the Avalon/Indigo threads too) is getting a bit overheated, 
to the detriment of clear communication.  We all could profit [me too! 
I'm one of the sinners, feel free to rub my nose in it]  by reading  
Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"  
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm every now and then.   
I think this quote succinctly summarizes his point: "If you simplify 
your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy ... 
when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to 
yourself. "


[I was thinking particularly of the following "bad example" Orwell 
quotes:

'All the "best people" from the gentlemen's clubs, and all the frantic 
fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial 
horror at the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have 
turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval 
legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of 
proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoise to 
chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary 
way out of the crisis.'

Here's an xml-devish version:

'All the thralls of Microsoft, and all the frantic patent holders, 
united in common hatred of XML's openness and bestial horror at the 
rising tide of the open source movement, have turned to acts of 
pollution, to foul corruption, to archaic legends about software 
development practice, to legalize their own destruction of the textual 
basis of XML, and rouse the confused application developers to 
chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the standard XML way 
out of the crisis.'

<duck>]