A milestone in XML

[Buss, Jason A]

> Wow...
> 
> I guess this hadn't really occurred to me.  This could get ugly quick.
> Sure, browsers may support XML, but what if they build all these "extras"
> based on their own DTD's into their development tools?  RSS?  CDF?  They
> may
> throw all these features in, but have processing engines to handle all
> these
> special "extras" that may/may not work in eachother's browsers.  Sounding
> like DHTML all over again?  Ugh......
> 
> Sure, they can do all this extra stuff at the chagrin of the development
> and
> standards communities, but when did that bother them in the past?  They
> could build all this "extra functionality" (read: proprietary)
> functionality
> into their browsers, the W3C group not give the "good developing seal of
> approval" for XML, and where does it leave XML?  Dead in the water.
> 
> Maybe that would be a blessing in disguise...  Maybe some rogue startup
> could develop an open-source browser that embraces standards and is free
> to
> everyone (GNU?  FSF?) and runs on all platforms and (at least attempts) to
> support N'scape and IE's little "toys".  Then if it wrestled enough market
> share from the others, just start gradually "dumping" all those added
> features, release by release.  Of course, since I am dreaming, I would
> like
> a pony....
> 
> Anyway, standards are great, but only as great as their support in the
> vendor world.  We've gotten a lot of promises, but nothing written in
> blood.
> Hopefully, if we can get the general developers (webmasters, publishers)
> to
> start screaming as loud as the standards developers, PD software
> developers,
> and consultants, maybe they will listen.
> 
> <subjective_opinion>
> Channels were a stupid idea anyway
> </subjective_opinion>
> 
> good luck to all,
> 
> -Jason
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Didier PH Martin [SMTP:martind at netfolder.com  
> > 
> > Hummmm, I understand that you have a very subjective view of it. Its OK,
> > we
> > can have subjective views as long as we don't state that they are
> > objective
> > :-)
> > 
> > My own subjective opinion. Don't expect competing species to respect a
> > common standard especially if a would be standard has been brought by
> the
> > competitor. It just gives a clue that XML don't resolve the unity of
> > languages. Contrary to that it encourage diversity and everybody can
> > invent
> > its own language. This is why, now just for channel or topic handling
> you
> > have (just a few of what's out there)
> > - CDF
> > - RSS
> > - RDF
> > - topic maps
> > 
> > In fact, what's marvelous about XML is that now each one can invent its
> > own
> > HTML :-) or its own meta data language.
> > 
> > Seriously speaking, RSS is popular in the Netscape ecosystem and CDF in
> > the
> > Microsoft ecosystem. Which one is better? Its a question of: in which
> > ecosystem you are. Never expect a Netscape specie to tell you that CDF
> is
> > good and do not expect a Microsoft specie to tell you that RSS is good.
> > Only
> > some rare species living in both ecosystems can tell you that both do
> the
> > job and in fact are about the same as long as you have the right
> > interpreter
> > to decode the language. And that the main perceive quality is dependant
> on
> > the interpreter quality and how data is presented. And even o this
> > subject,
> > taste differ. And this is good. Its only a matter of ecosystem, taste
> and
> > often a question of religion :-)
> > 
> > My own religion tell me that I cannot use CDF or RSS because big money
> is
> > reincarnated into these products :-)))) just kidding :-)))
> > 
> > 

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;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)