XML API specification

[Len Bullard]

David Durand wrote:
> 
> I see XML-groves and XML-API as parallel and needing to be in synch. I
> don't see either as having to depend on the other, though, and frankly,
> given the relative penetration of groves and Java into the "global
> developer consciousness", I don't see groves as that high a priority.

If relative penetration is important, spec it in COBOL or C.

This kind of argument went on in VRML and was wisely rejected.
The commitment to a CORBA IDL is a commitment to a syntax for the spec 
and not a lot else.  The commitment to JAVA for implementation 
is only a commitment to a slow language.  The commitment to it 
in the spec is a commitment to SUN.  That should never be 
a part of the spec.  It should be something the spec can 
be bound to.  It will anyway, but XML's future is in many 
languages and platforms.

Groves, as Richard Light pointed out, at the very least 
gives us authoritative names for things.  As Joe English 
and Gavin Nicol have pointed out, the bindings here are 
trivial.  If that is the case, then groves-IDL-Whatever(Java, C++, etc) 
is the right thing to do.  Let all implementors decide 
what they want to penetrate and with which device.

len bullard

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa at ic.ac.uk)