Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <3E10B4F3.3060906@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:04:51 -0800
From: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] Entities in XML docs
References: <20021227134332.GA3868@expresso.localdomain>
 <20021229204191.SM00297@there> <3E0FB865.4010507@apache.org>
 <200212302126566.SM00297@there>
In-Reply-To: <200212302126566.SM00297@there>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joerg Pietschmann wrote:
> On Monday 30 December 2002 04:07, you wrote:
> 
>>JClark's RNG validator works as a SAX filter
> 
> Good news!

Yep.

>>Still, the issue is: do we *really* want to maintain the structure of
>>our documents in both DTDs and RNGs at the same time?
> 
> The issue is: Can you get away with dumping DTDs and forcing
> RNG on everyone?

I'll tell you one thing: for sure I won't get fired for that :)

 > If there is enough documentation which tells
> users where to get command line RNG validators and how to plug
> them into various authoring environments, then why not? Well,
> the industry went for XSD (prematurely, I'm about to think), so it
> may be wise to cater for XSD for a while too...

XMLSchema sucks ass. Period. I still have to hear *one* person that 
doesn't think the opposite.

Damn, even my internal spies in W3C tell me there are rumors that 
somebody is talking about using RNG as XMLSchema 2.0. This should tell 
us something.

Imagine that RNG was a W3C reccomendation and XMLSchema came out of 
Oracle and was submitted to Oasis, would we be having any doubt at all?

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.

My point is: *we* don't need to be influenced by them if we have a tool 
that falls back and gives them what the need.

This is exactly why JClark is spending his time writing Trang because he 
figured out that automation is the only way to route around the W3C 
political bullshit on the schema realm.

He wants to balance the picture so that people will write the schema in 
the semantics they like the best and the tools will translate them at need.

This is what I'm suggesting for Forrest in the long run.

>>>An easy implementation doesn't mean there are no problems.
> 
> [Notes and answers snipped]
 >
> Amazing how much your thoughts diverged from Jeff's.

Well, I wish somebody commented on them though.

>>It's scary to see that the only people that actually *get it* are those
>>who are not seating in an expert group.
> 
> I've been in two standardization commissions. Its no fun at all.

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.

> It is already bad if there are managers throwing around the market
> power of the organisations they represent, but experts are even worse:
> everybody (including me) has his (never seen a woman there :) pet
> mechanism/architecture/syntax, nurtured for half a professional life,
> which *must* get into the standard for the benefit of mankind,
> regardless of other losses.

Yep.

> It seems odd that there are occasionally standards which are good
> right from the start, like SCSI or XSLT/XPath 1.0. Even more odd
> that SCSI didn't run into the "second system syndrome" (XPath 2.0
> probably will).

Yes, it will, influenced by XQuery and the ego-problems in the XSL WG

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi                               <stefano@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------