forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Pietschmann <j3322...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: [RT] Entities in XML docs
Date Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:10:37 GMT
On Monday 30 December 2002 22:04, you wrote:
> XMLSchema suc**
Compared to DTDs, XSD is a big leap, and even in a vaguely
right direction. That they ended up in the middle of a tar pit is,
well, lack of good karma or something.

As for XSD support, I though more of poor Steven wrestling with
this expensive XMetal thingie, which is a bit agnostic when it comes
to RNG. But then, if *Steven* asks Corel for RNG support and pulls
the ASF weight properly, they might even listen... 

> But vendors and managers don't care if a technology is good or not, they
> go for what they understand, and 'recommended by W3C' today means 'good
> for you', so they'll use it.

Amen. Straying OT again, it seems most CTOs still think of the W3C as
the independent consortium lead by individuals with great visions and
without commercial interests. Unfortunately the W3C is now dominated
by the big software vendors, and they have other priorities:
- leverage the branding power of the standard body
- get the standards as compatible as possible with their own current
  and planned products
- create some buzz causing customers to move to this products.
If a standard turns out to be bloated and overcomplicated, so what?
This is even an opportunity to sell more tools, lock out would-be
competitors who can't afford 500+ on staff just for testing, and to "add
value" (read: proprietary extensions).

> > Amazing how much your thoughts diverged from Jeff's.
> Well, I wish somebody commented on them though.
The point appears to be moot now.

> Yes, I know that. Still I can't believe it's not possible to do a better
> job on such important pieces of the XML model, expecially when there is
> a wonderful community of expert on xml-dev that have very clear and
> precise visions.
The XML-DEV isn't infallible either, and I doubt the list as a whole would
have done a better job. Good standards appear to be driven by a *small*
group with a common vision and a really good understanding of the
whole subject. On XML-DEV there are enough "names" who don't
see the whole picture, and probably don't *want* to see it. They are, of
course, very good at doing post mortem analysis.

It would be interesting to have an analysis why for example the SCSI
standard series grew organically without major problems and even
survived hitting hard physical limits, while SQL or some XML-related
standards turned into a big ball of mud.
A guess: SCSI had SoC built in right from the start and applied it
rigorously each time new abstractions were needed. But this is not the
whole magic, SQL1 wasn't that bad at SoC either.
Ironically: SQL couldn't get clear of a seemingly small snag called
"datetype", which had 99.9% hidden in the mud (a commonly accepted
algebra for manipulating and comparing dates and timespans expressed
in terms of calendar dates). This is what XQuery can bring us now,
regardless of what bad you can say of it otherwise...
Well, the above might be more appropriate on a weblog than on forrest-dev.

J.Pietschmann

Mime
View raw message