On 3/25/13 1:54 PM, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> It *does* make for a correlation. But correlation is not causation.
I would argue - based on the history of the standards and the tools -
that there is indeed causation as well as correlation. Most humans
respond primarily to correlation in any case.
(As in, when I tell people I wrote XML: A Primer, a common response is
"XML. Schemas. XSLT. Barf." Every now and then I get "your book made
me rich!", but that's occasional.)
> No, XML shows up in all kinds of development projects and it's
> appearance has no correlation to the project management style (waterfall
> or not). The only correlation is between legacy / enterprise type
> projects and "waterfall development". XML is an innocent bystander to
> that mess (in spite of the fact that Simon spotted it at the scene of
> the crime)...
I fear that this is not (remotely) my experience.
There are occasional movements in XML simplicity - I keep the rarely
visited Common XML <http://www.simonstl.com/articles/cxmlspec.txt>
posted as a reminder.
There are also a substantial number of people who effectively use a
DTD/schema-free subset because they've retreated to the simplest subset
possible. Some I've met came from XHTML and just figured they could use
the same syntax. There is certainly "POX", which emerged from some
combination of this and web services.
I don't, however, remember anyone teaching this as XML best practice or
publishing extensively on it. I don't believe it remotely qualifies as
"mainstream XML".
Thanks,
--
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/
