XML complexity, namespaces (was WG)
cbullard at hiwaay.net
Fri Mar 19 04:15:27 GMT 1999
Richard Goerwitz wrote:
> The sooner we can all agree on another schema mechanism, the sooner we
> can all stop trying to outfit XML with all the kludges that people have
> already built onto SGML to make it useful in a modern, scoped, object-
> oriented world.
I agree for the most part.
<rant>As one who also doesn't like to see one group try to get hegemony
taking out the prior group (sort of the imperialism the europeans
used on the american indians and the HTML community used on everyone),
I also admit a DTD comes up short when one starts trying to do things
with it that neither it nor SGML were designed for. The SGML community
realized this at least a decade ago and has been intensely involved in
work to fix it. Let's face it, XML has concentrated most of that
work in one domain and be glad for it.</rant>
I think (just an opinion) the right way (morally and politically) to
approach this is to say that as the environment has changed, and the
demands on markup systems for applications not envisioned in the
original designs of SGML have emerged, the requirements have changed.
New capabilities have to be designed to meet the requirements.
Stodgy as that may sound, it is an engineering approach to what
is an engineering job. We will do well to be engineers and not try
to crusade. Otherwise, we become like artists who also write critique:
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev